The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of defraudation of facts (as to the fraud).

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges on the Defendant by taking account of the evidence as indicated in the judgment.

The following facts or circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court: (i) the Defendant appears to have been economically unable to consume approximately KRW 119 million of insurance proceeds received from F for personal purposes at the time of the instant crime; (ii) the Defendant forged and presented a lease agreement in the name of the Defendant and K, which entered the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, to the victim; and (iii) the Defendant appears to be able to believe the existence of the right to return the lease deposit to the victim; and (iii) the Defendant returned the coffee shop deposit amount of KRW 30 million from the lessor and paid it as a repayment deposit to the F.

In full view of the fact that the deposit amount of KRW 30 million stated in the forged lease agreement appears to have existed at the time of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first trial that is respected under the principle of trial priority and directism taken by our criminal litigation law and the ex post facto core character of the appellate court, the first deliberation is made.