The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) alleged to the effect that the Defendant did not administer philophones as stated in Nos. 6 through 8 of the List of Offenses in the original trial at the second trial date of the trial at the second trial of the court below, but the Defendant alleged that the philophones were not administered. However, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal since it was alleged that the reason for appeal was too excessive, and it cannot be seen as a ground for ex officio examination. Thus, it does not constitute

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s punishment was determined within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account the circumstances surrounding the Defendant’s sentencing, such as the period of the instant phiphone-related crime, the amount of damage caused by fraud and larceny, the recovery of damage therefrom, and whether the Defendant’s criminal history and reflectivity, etc. As such, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable even in light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant on grounds of appeal.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.