The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In the text of the judgment of the court below, "No. 2-A, B-C, and 2-C."

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court below (the original judgment), each of the crimes in subparagraphs 1, 2-A, 2-B-2, and 2-2 of Article 2 of the judgment of the court below, is "each of the crimes in subparagraphs 1, 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C in the judgment of the court below." However, since it is obvious that it is a clerical error, it is obvious that it is a clerical error, it is "each of the crimes in subparagraphs 1, 2-A, 2-A, 1, 2-B(b) in the judgment of the court below." Among the crimes in the attached Table 1-1, 11, 3, 4-A, 4-B, and 2-B, it is too unfair that imprisonment for a maximum term of one year, short term of eight months, 1 year and 4 months, and 2-B, and 2-B is too unfair.

2. The lower court: (a) took into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and against himself; (b) the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant crimes in a state of aesthetic learning and that his property damage does not exceed KRW 10 million; (c) the Defendant, even though having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment, was driving a motor vehicle again at least five days without a license; and (d) the Defendant continuously committed fraud, embezzlement, and intimidation while the Defendant is under trial, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime; and (b) the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant was determined by taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the trial following the crime.

In full view of the elements of the sentencing expressed in the course of the lower court’s examination, the lower court’s determination did not have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion, and there is no change in the sentencing condition that is deemed unreasonable to maintain the lower court’s determination as it is.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted, since repayment of embezzlement was made during the investigation process, it is already reflected in the sentencing of the court below.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.