The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the original court (ten months of imprisonment) shall be too unlimited and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, the court below determined punishment within the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, taking into account the following factors: (a) the amount acquired by deception is not specified; (b) the damage recovery is not recovered; (c) the mistake is divided and reflected; (d) there is no record of punishment as a same crime; and (e) there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine; and (e) the family environment is not

B. Although there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial court, and considering the various reasons revealed in the oral proceedings, the lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

C. Therefore, the argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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

(However, the term "the name of the victim" in the second page 1 of the judgment below is clear that "the name of the victim", "the 15th day of the same month", "the 17th day of the same month", and "the intention or the 17th day of the same month to make a full payment" are each clerical error of "the intention or the 15th day of the same month", and therefore, it is correct ex officio in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.