The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant’s petition of appeal did not state the grounds for appeal, and only claimed unfair sentencing in the grounds of appeal.

Article 111 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act claiming that Article 111 of the Attorney-at-Law Act applies to cases or affairs handled by public officials through a summary of the oral argument of December 18, 2019 by the defendant's defense counsel. Since the husband of the victim's husband is already under the final and conclusive judgment and release of the victim is not a case or affairs handled by public officials, it cannot be deemed as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and the calculation

B. However, the argument of misunderstanding legal principles newly made after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal is difficult to be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

However, even if examining the above assertion of legal principles ex officio, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① when the victim’s husband was a part of the investigation agency and the victim’s husband was arrested, the defendant deceivings the victim as if he could have an influence on the arrest of the husband, ② Even if the victim’s husband had already been sentenced to imprisonment with labor, there is a retrial system or suspension of execution, etc., and thus the victim’s personal restraint problem cannot be deemed unrelated to the cases or affairs handled by public officials, such as the trademark and prosecutor, etc.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, the sentencing of the first instance court, which is respected under the trial-oriented principle and the directism taken by our criminal procedure law, is unique.