The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine, on October 31, 2018, inasmuch as the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for fraud at the Cheongju District Court on July 1, 2019, and became final and conclusive on July 1, 2019.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the criminal defendant is against the instant crime; (b) efforts are made to agree with the victims; and (c) the equity in the case where the said criminal crime was committed simultaneously with the said criminal offense for which the judgment became final and conclusive.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles (ex officio correction), the above final judgment which sentenced the defendant to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud in the last 8 through 10 of the judgment below's 2th 8th 15th 2th 15th 2th 15th 2th 2th 3th 3th 3th 3th 12th 3th 3th 3th 3 and 4th 4th 4th 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A), which was omitted, is obvious that it is a clerical error, and thus, it is corrected ex officio to correct this ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

B. As the current Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of trial-oriented and directness as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing in the current Criminal Procedure Act, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). 2) The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing favorable to the grounds of appeal are already determined in the lower court.