The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was not involved in the solicitation or conduct of the issuance of B’s check, and the Defendant introduced A to B, and there is no substantial relation between the Defendant’s act and the non-payment of the check.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court rejected the said assertion on the grounds of various detailed circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of law as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and a discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the first deliberation sentencing is determined.