The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant agreed to pay the retirement allowance in installments from January 2018 to January 201, along with the monthly salary, from January 2018, and fulfilled all the payment of the retirement allowance.

In light of these circumstances, there is no intention to pay retirement allowances to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted that mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical to the grounds for appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by reasoning of the judgment in the “decision on the Defendant and the Defense Counsel’s argument”.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court concerning the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's inappropriate sentencing.