The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and that the amount of damage is a small amount, and that only agreed with the victim of the fraudulent crime.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant on two occasions after he was provided with alcoholic beverages and singing in a singing room, and then reported this fact to the police.

The indictment is written on October 27, 2016, stating that the Defendant was investigated by the police on September 22, 2016, and the indictment was written on October 27, 2016, stating that the employer would make his/her business owners concentrate on claiming the payment, and that he/she did not have any good quality in light of the content and circumstances of the crime, and that the Defendant was punished several times due to the crime committed without prison labor, and that the Defendant was a repeated offender due to the same type of crime. However, according to the records of this case, the indictment was written on October 27, 2016, including the arrest of a flagrant offender.

In addition, considering the fact that there seems to be a considerable possibility of re-offending due to the lack of compliance consciousness, such as committing the crime of fraud in the holding of the court below, and other various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. The burden of litigation costs is governed by the proviso of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the lower judgment’s correction of the facts constituting the crime No. 2-1 of the lower judgment to “ around October 29, 2016,” “ around October 21, 2016,” as “ around October 27, 2016,” (it is obvious that the records of this case are clerical errors according to the records of this case, and even if they are corrected as above.”