2. Determination is recognized as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime, thereby contravening his mistake; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime only once; (c) the Defendant did not have any profit gained by the instant crime; (d) the victim of the instant crime is deemed to have applied for payment suspension immediately to a financial institution; and (e) the actual damage resulting from the instant crime appears to have not occurred; and (e) the Defendant is the first offender with no history of criminal punishment.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant in return for promising the Defendant to receive the price, and the crime was not exceptionally committed in light of the content and method of the crime.

As above, lending the above-mentioned access media is highly likely to undermine the reliability of the safety performance of electronic financial transactions, as well as significantly punish the leased access media because it has a negative impact on society by using it for crimes such as Bosing, etc. and developing a large number of victims.

In fact, taking into account the fact that the above access media that the defendant lent was used to keep the profits of the crime, such as the fraud of the second criminal, the criminal liability corresponding to it may not be charged to the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. 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.