2. The fact that the card kept by the Defendant appears to have not been actually used for the commission of singing, and that the Defendant recognized and reflected the crime, and that there is no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant decided to act as a liability for withdrawal and remittance of the singing crime, entered the Republic of Korea, and kept the cing card with a view to using it for the singinging crime. The singing crime consists of organized crimes, causing serious damage to many victims, making it difficult to recover damage, so severe punishment is required, and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is highly likely to be subject to criticism, and the number of means of access (the total nine pages) kept by the Defendant is also disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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