The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel (unfair form of punishment) is against the defendant, the defendant is relatively old, the victim T expressed his/her intention not to want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant deposited one million won for the recovery of damage to the victim V, etc., the court below’s sentence that sentenced eight months to imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is not deemed to have been committed by the Defendant through a systematic division of roles with A and B, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 22, 2014 to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, threats, etc.) at the Suwon District Court on July 22, 2014, and committed each of the crimes of this case during the suspended execution period; the Defendant’s sharing of expenses is an essential role in the completion of the so-called so-called “Singing” crime, and the degree of participation cannot be deemed to be less and less than the degree of participation; it is not proper to recover from damage until the trial; and taking into account the motive and background of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances before and after each of the crimes of this case, degree of damage, and other various matters prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, including the Defendant’s character and conduct, etc. presented in the records and arguments of this case, and there is no reason for appeal.

Inasmuch as the defense counsel had never known the fact that the passbook delivered by the defendant to B during the third trial of the trial of the trial was to be used for the crimes of Bosing, the defense counsel asserts that there was no intention to commit the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud in this case. However, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since a new complaint was filed after the appeal period was not timely, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, it is recognized by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and by the legal statement of the court of the first instance.