The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Determination of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment in one year and six months) is unreasonable;

2. The lower court, while taking into account the Defendant’s reflectivity and the fact that there was no domestic penal power, determined the sentence by taking into account the nature of the crime, the degree of damage, and the recovery of

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing elements.

There is no change in sentencing elements in the appellate court.

Although the sentencing guidelines do not apply to the crimes in the commercial concurrent relationship, the sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing are reviewed in this court.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for the choice of punishment

1. The provision of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act that aggravated concurrent crimes is stated on 1. The provision of Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Act on the Punishment of Concurrent Crimes

1. Inasmuch as it is clear that a mistake has been made in writing in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 38(2), and Article 50 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the ex officio rectification is made in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation

.