The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) did not have an intention to take part in the principal offender’s fraud.

In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued that the above argument of mistake of facts is identical to the above argument of mistake of facts, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail, and in light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is legitimate, and the defendant's argument of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no significant change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing of Defendant after the lower judgment.

In light of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment, the Defendant is the reason for appeal.