The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (4 months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The victim G does not want the punishment of the defendant. Each of the crimes in the holding of the lower judgment is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of rape for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the crime of rape after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the equity should be taken into account with the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously.

However, in light of the fact that a tin-opener crime, which is called a tin-opener who financing funds to financial consumers through the most recent transactions as in the instant case, is virtually high loans, it is necessary to strictly punish a credit card company in light of the fact that it disturbs the financial order, eventually causes damage to the financial consumers, and the Defendant committed the instant injury during the confinement of a detention house, and there is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, background leading to the crime, amount of illegal financing, degree of injury, etc. as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party, the punishment imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. According to the conclusion, Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). However, the first head of the crime of the lower judgment ex officio pursuant to Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor for rape in Busan District Court on September 1, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 28, 20

Before the last sentence of the evidence, “1. Before the ruling,” the search by the Supreme Court for the Konet case, respectively.