The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (hereinafter “fine 10,000,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the Defendant was aware of the instant crime and the mistake is divided, and the instant crime is in the concurrent relationship between the crime established on May 25, 2010 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the fact that it is necessary to determine punishment in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, however, the court below seems to have determined the punishment by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and it seems that there was no change in circumstances that would be different from the judgment of the court below, and the defendant has been sentenced to a fine and a suspended execution several times due to the crime of this case. However, during the suspended execution period, there is an inevitable reason to punish the defendant more severe punishment than the crime of this case, and there is no measure to recover damage by agreement with the victim or deposit money up to the trial, and other various sentencing conditions that are shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age and behavior environment, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., are too unreasonable.

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

(However, in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the term “the pertinent provision of the Act on 1. Criminal Facts” is deemed to be “the pertinent provision of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime of 1. Criminal facts” and, at the end, the term “the choice of fine” is accordingly corrected