The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Although the defendant's former defense counsel (appointed to appoint a public defender or resign) has asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in each appellate brief dated July 24, 2018 and July 25, 2018, the defendant and his defense counsel explicitly withdrawn the above argument on the second trial date.

2. The fact that the victim is also responsible for the occurrence of the crime, to the extent that it is against the common sense due to the expectation of unfair interests in the judgment, and that the defendant himself is also aware of the fact that he is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a false statement to the effect that the defendant lending funds necessary for the defendant to carry and use the unregistered currency of the Bank of Korea, which is kept in the mother's book, to the effect that it would be necessary for the defendant to carry and use the unregistered currency of the Bank of Korea. The crime of this case is very bad in light of the course and contents of the crime, and the extent of damage, etc.

Up to now, victims have not been fully recovered.

On April 2, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of a suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment for fraud, and the judgment was finalized on January 2, 2015, but committed the instant crime even though it was still under a suspended sentence.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable that the appellate court respects the sentencing of the first instance court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Taking full account of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, circumstance, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee.