The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant appealed on the ground that the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable. However, in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and pleadings of the instant case, including the following: (a) the crime of using a forged credit card threatens the foundation of credit transaction order; (b) the Defendant had a large number of forged credit cards; and (c) the Defendant attempted to make payments by using it; and (d) the Defendant had interview and dangerous criminal methods, such as attempting to make payments several times with other forged credit cards even if the approval of payment was refused, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Since the appeal by the defendant is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, it is clear that the phrase “Article 70(1)2 and 6” in the third 12-13 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in Article 70(6) and 70(1)2 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. Thus, it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.