2. The judgment of the court below recognizes the defendant's own crime and reflects on the fact that there is a family member to support the defendant, the necessity to consider equity in the case where the first head of the crime in this case and the crime in the judgment of the court below was judged simultaneously with the crime in this case. However, considering such fact, the court below is recognized that the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court has already been taken into account, and the type 1 (less than KRW 100 million): The scope of the recommended sentence is deemed to have been sentenced to the lowest sentence of between 6 months and 1 year and 6 months (basic area): most damages have not been recovered; the victims have not agreed upon; the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and result of the crime in this case and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., it is not reasonable that the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, it is evident that “dore retail” in Part 20 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the pertinent legal provisions and the choice of punishment for the crime of 1.1. As such, it is obvious that the “dore retail” in Part 20 of the judgment of the court below is a “dore retail” and “the pertinent legal provisions for the crime of 1