The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is advantageous to the fact that the defendant recognized the whole crime and reflects the depth of his crime, that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime in the past, and that he must support his daughters for the seven-month period.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed by many people with public funds to stabilize the housing of homeless workers; (b) there is a high possibility of criticism; (c) damage recovery was not made; and (d) there is no change in circumstances to the sentencing after the lower judgment; and (d) other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence resulting from each of the instant crimes; and (e) the motive, means and consequence leading up to each of the instant crimes and the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the records and arguments, such as circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.