2. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the crime of this case was committed by using the Defendant’s name; (b) the act of directly taking the name of the nominal owner was committed by going to work such as exchange consultation on a daily basis, and the degree of participation is not easy; and (c) the motive and circumstances leading up to the crime of this case; (d) the circumstances after the crime of this case was committed; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, etc.; and (e) the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the records and arguments, are considered as follows: (a) the Internet web gate site was opened and the personal information was entered into with the settlement agency without the nominal owner’s permission procedure; and (e) the amount of the crime of this case was paid without permission; and (e) the act of directly taking the name of the nominal owner as the nominal owner was committed; and (e) the act was committed by going to work every day; and (e) the degree of participation is not easy.

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