The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, knew that he was G and the victim was aware of the fact that he actually used the money to use the money to the victim at the time of the instant case, and thus, cannot be deemed to have committed deception as stated in the instant facts charged. Furthermore, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the relevant legal principles, a thorough examination is justifiable, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The determination of sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing as shown in the process of the first instance sentencing hearing and the sentencing guidelines, or the first instance sentencing judgment is deemed to be unfair in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing.