The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case including the fact that the court below's punishment (two years of imprisonment) was too excessive and unfair, but the defendant appealed on the ground that there was a large number of criminal records of the same kind, especially the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he committed a repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, even though the size of damage was considerable, and the victim did not make any effort to recover from damage until now after the crime of this case, and the victim wanted to punish the defendant, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable for the reason as 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, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “the delivery was received” in the last sentence of the judgment of the court below as “the acquisition of property profits by using a credit card with a sound credit card”, and shall be corrected as adding “1. A repeated offender Article 35 of the Criminal Act”