The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendant on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the sentence of imprisonment of eight months and forty hours and the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program) is too unreasonable.

2. Although there are no circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all the instant crimes and the amount of damage to property crimes is not relatively large, the lower court appears to have rendered a sentence by fully considering such circumstances, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court in the instant case where there is no change in circumstances that can be newly considered in the first instance trial.

In addition, according to the records of this case, the defendant was arrested and released as a flagrant offender in the 2017 Highest 5283 case, and did not proceed to the remaining crimes.

In addition, even if all the sentencing conditions specified in the pleadings of this case, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are examined, the sentence of the court below is unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

[Provided, however, it is clear that the lower court’s application of the statutes is the following errors, and thus, ex officio rectification is to be made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

(1) Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement) provides that "Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Embezzlement)" shall be amended to "Embezzlements from possession" (Embezzlements from possession).

(2) "Act on each credit-specialized financial business" shall be amended to "Act on Finance Business Specializing in Credit."

Since it is reasonable to see that the Defendant went to an illegal use with a single criminal intent to purchase goods with his own card, the Defendant constitutes a single crime (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1181, Jul. 12, 1996). 3, at the end of the part of the application of the statutes, the following are included in the crime of violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Business.