The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records, the court below sentenced a punishment by taking into account various sentencing reasons, including the following: (a) the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the process and method of the crime; (b) the number of victims and the amount of damage is considerably high; (c) the recovery of damage is not proper; (d) the victim of the crime obstructing the exercise of rights was divided and reflected; (c) the victim agreed with the victim of the crime obstructing the exercise of rights did not want the punishment of the defendant; (d) the part of the amount of damage caused by the crime of occupational embezzlement was recovered; and (e) there was no record of punishment other than the punishment imposed by a fine for driving under drinking in

B. Although there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because a new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial at the original court, and considering various reasons for sentencing revealed in the oral proceedings, the lower court’s sentencing was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

(c)

Therefore, the argument of sentencing is without merit.

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