2. The judgment of the defendant is advantageous to the recognition of the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine is favorable.

However, the crime of this case not only harms the safety and reliability of electronic financial transactions, but also can be abused as an important means of other crimes because the means of access arranging the transfer by the defendant is not good. The means of access arranging the transfer is actually used for the Internet goods sale fraud, and the defendant commits the crime of this case even if he had the record of being sentenced to suspension of indictment due to the same kind of crime.

Considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and various conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant records and pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s judgment cannot be deemed unreasonable to have exceeded, or maintain, the reasonable bounds of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.