The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, violation of law, and unfair sentencing) was delegated by E.

There was no explicit delegation, and there was no intention with regard to the delegation.

The determination of punishment (2 million won) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment E on misunderstanding of facts and legal violations stated in the lower court that there was no fact that the Defendant delegated his/her signature to the signature campaign (B) on his/her behalf.

A signature movement (B) is not a document of the nature that the defendant can sign on his/her own behalf, unless it is confirmed that the request for dismissal of the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives has been made.

There is no error in the judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant forged and exercised the E part of the signature movement (B), or in violation of law, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment maintaining a summary order on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

The punishment seems to be determined by considering the circumstances of crimes as sentencing factors.

There is no change in sentencing elements in the appellate court.

Although the sentencing criteria do not apply to the case of the request for formal trial against the summary order, it is not unreasonable to determine the sentencing of the original court, considering the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing as set forth in the sentencing criteria in this court, even if they are reviewed again.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit.

The dismissal under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is dismissed.