2. There is no change in circumstances in the trial about the sentencing of the judgment, and the lower court already determined the punishment by taking full account of all circumstances that the Defendant already asserted as the grounds for appeal.

Although the defendant asserts that the punishment should be applied by law since he voluntarily surrenders to the crime of forging and uttering private signature, the court below appears to have determined the punishment by fully taking into account the above circumstances at the sentencing stage. Article 52 of the Criminal Act provides that the number of persons subject to punishment shall be set as a cause of voluntary reduction and exemption, and it does not require to reduce the punishment. Thus, this part of the argument is without

In particular, the Defendant has been punished 12 times in total as a crime of fraud, and even after being sentenced to a suspended sentence on December 14, 2016, the Defendant continued to have been punished five times after being sentenced to a suspended sentence due to a crime of fraud and continued to have been punished by a fine, but at the same time, it did not know about each of the crimes of this case.

In full view of the sentencing grounds cited by the lower court, including the above fact that the risk of recidivism and possibility of criticism is high, and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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