The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable (the punishment of the lower court (3 million won) so that it is too unreasonable (the Defendant appealed after the Defendant confessioned all of the instant crimes at the lower court and was sentenced to a fine of three million won). The petition of appeal submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel is too excessive to the sentencing of the lower court.

I will post a further detailed reason.

The grounds for appeal submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel was stated as “I appealed on the grounds of mistake of legal principles (misunderstanding of legal principles), mistake of facts, and illegality of sentencing.”

As the defendant does not contact with, I appealed first on the ground of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing.

I would like to arrange the reasons for appeal when contact with the defendant.

“The reasons for the appeal have been indicated as “,” and the reasons for the appeal were between the third trial date at the trial of the first instance.

In doing so, the argument that “misunderstanding of facts and legal principles” stated in the written reasons for appeal as above cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal because it is difficult to find out any factual misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles by itself, and thus, we examine the following unfair argument for sentencing ( even if the argument for misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are included in the grounds for appeal, a thorough comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the conclusion that the court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by considering the evidence in its holding is just, and otherwise, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconception

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty and discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, under the principle of court-oriented trials and directism taken by our criminal litigation law, the unique area of sentencing in the first instance, which is respected, and the follow-up nature of the appellate court.