2. In light of the fact that the instant crime led to the occurrence of the victim of Bosing, and the social harm inflicted on the crime of Bosing, there is a need to strictly punish the act of lending the means of access, such as the instant crime, etc., that is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes the crime and reflects it, that the means of access has agreed with the victim of the crime using the said means, and that there is no record of punishment for the same crime or the crime exceeding the fine, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of all the circumstances indicated in the record, including the above circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment is deemed reasonable and too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that there is no reason to reject the Defendant’s appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the decision of the court below to revise the “each Electronic Financial Transaction Act” in the context of application of the statutes