The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is too unreasonable. The sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Considering the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime and reflects on the defendant, the sentence is deemed to have been sentenced in consideration of the circumstances alleged by the defendant, ② there is no particular change in circumstances that may be considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, ③ other circumstances that include the defendant’s age, sex, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is appropriate, and it does not seem to be unfair because it is excessively unreasonable.

B. However, withdrawal of the indictment by the method of amending the indictment is possible only to some of the facts charged within the extent that the identity of the facts charged is recognized. As such, where several facts charged in the indictment are not identical, and there are substantive concurrent relations with each other, withdrawal of part of the indictment must be made not by the method of the modification of the indictment, but by the procedure of partial revocation of the indictment. In addition, where there is a request for withdrawal of one of the several facts charged in substantive concurrent relations with each other, it is evident that this is the purpose of revoking the indictment, even though it does not meet the form of application for revocation of the indictment, the decision of rejection of the indictment should be made by deeming that it is revoked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do1438, Apr. 24, 1992). According to the records, a prosecutor submitted an application for permission of modification of the indictment to the court below on September 23, 2015. The contents are as follows.