The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted the victim of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant merely operated the restaurant in this case with the victim and did not have the victim take over the obligation of this case by deceiving the victim. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months suspended, one year of community service, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating the defendant's assertion and its determination under the title "a judgment on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the grounds for appeal. In light of the above judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is justified.