The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment, eight months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant is based on the following facts: (a) the defendant is aware of and reflects each of the instant criminal facts; (b) the damaged goods of the instant quasi-Robbery were only two cell phone charging machines and returned immediately after the crime was committed; (c) the victim F did not want the punishment of the defendant because the defendant was not limited to the degree of assault used to escape arrest; (d) the victim F did not want the punishment of the defendant; (e) each of the damaged goods of the instant larceny and the crime of embezzlement of occupied articles was returned most; (e) the defendant was sentenced once to a fine for this type of crime; (e) the suspension of execution once a suspended sentence; and (e) there was no other criminal record except for the defendant being punished once; and (e) the defendant was discharged from a mental hospital and did not contact with his father, friendly; and thus, (e) the damage caused by the instant quasi-Robbery; and (e) the victim should take into account equity in cases where the judgment should be rendered concurrently with the obstruction of special execution of official duties finalized by the judgment.

Meanwhile, the crime of this case repeatedly embezzled or lost things of another person, and uses a stolen or acquired card arbitrarily, and, after the theft of a mobile phone charging device, assaulted the victim F to evade arrest, and the number of times is not good. The defendant was detained due to interference with the execution of special duties as stated in the judgment, etc., and committed each crime of this case, violation of the Act on Special Financial Business, which is specialized in credit extension, and embezzlement of possession, during the suspended execution period, during the suspended execution period, and the defendant was punished by the defendant because he did not agree with the remaining victims other than the victim F until the party in question.