The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. It is recognized that there are some parts to be considered in the motive of each of the instant crimes in light of the fact that the Defendant recognized all of his/her own crimes, the fact that the Defendant is a person with a disability of Grade III intellectual disability, and the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes due to hive disc diseases, and that the amount of damage to

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay medical expenses from the beginning and received medical treatment or treatment while using the special room of the victim hospital, the Defendant was in bad condition, and there were several criminal charges due to the same type of fraud and the violation of the Resident Registration Act, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again during the repeated crime due to the same criminal record, and the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes on the five months following the release, there is a question about whether the Defendant has a serious reflectiveness in light of the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes on the five months after the release; the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.; the Defendant’s damage was recovered from or did not agree with the victim; the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, etc.; and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s sentencing excessively is unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that “the choice of each fine” as stated in the 2nd sentence of the applicable column of the judgment below is a clerical error in each “the choice of each imprisonment”, and thus, it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 2