The Defendant appealed from the lower court on the ground that the lower court’s punishment (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable, and thus, the Prosecutor appealed from each of the grounds that the lower court’s punishment is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant made a confession and reflect on all of the instant crimes.

There is no criminal offense beyond the fine against the defendant.

However, the defendant played a role of withdrawing money and remitting money to another person's real name by using the check card which was delivered under the direction of the person without name.

These crimes are not only disrupting the safety and reliability of financial transactions, but also serving as the basis of other serious crimes such as Bosing crimes. The responsibility is heavy.

The number of means of access kept by the accused and the amount withdrawn by the accused are not many.

In around 2019, the Defendant committed the instant crime even under investigation by the police on suspicion that he/she transferred the means of access under the name of the Defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing as indicated in the instant case, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.