The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The 80-day detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be sentenced to the penalty of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to Article 1-3 of the lower judgment’s crime No. 1-c. of the lower judgment), the Defendant cited excessive damages in the course of victim B’s attempt to deduct excessive damages, and thus, the Defendant did not constitute a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.), but the lower court convicted him of this part of the charges

B. In light of various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant alleged unfair sentencing is divided in depth into his own crime, that the victim B is minor, that he deposited money for the victim B and D, that the victim E and F did not want the punishment of the defendant, punishment imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the witness B's statement in the party trial, it is recognized that the defendant committed a excessive act several times to the victim B, and the victim B attempted to deduct excessive damages during this part of this case. The defendant's act of indicating excessive amount and the victim B's act of deducting excessive amount are not separate, but it was almost at the same time, and as a whole, a series of processes were conducted.

I would like to say.

Therefore, since the defendant's act can be deemed that the victim B suffered losses, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, and the above part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the argument of unfair sentencing, and consider the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case, even though he was sentenced to a fine for the same kind of crime three years prior to the crime without the crime of this case.