The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and mistake, the Defendant did not pay the tolls on an expressway due to negligence that did not timely charge the pre-paid card, and did not intentionally use the de-paid facility.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of April and the fine of KRW 1,000,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant intentionally uses convenience facilities in consideration of the following: (a) the Defendant intentionally uses convenience facilities, taking into account the following: (b) the fact that the Defendant: (c) was a person with no balance; (d) was the fact that the Defendant inserted a device into the device and sent a warning at the time that he passed through the package exclusive use area; (e) there was no evidence that the Defendant discovered the cause thereof or made no effort to verify whether the Defendant was paid the fee; and (e) the Defendant was operating the stand dedicated car without paying a toll on 194 occasions from March 31, 2018 to January 9, 2019.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court as to the unfair argument on sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court 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). Although it is recognized that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant fraud, and that the Defendant paid the amount in arrears ex post facto, the above favorable circumstances are considered most of the sentencing in the lower court, and there are no new circumstances or special changes in circumstances that could reduce the sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by excessively leaving excessive discretion.

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

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.