2. Comprehensively taking account of the arguments in the instant case and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering all the circumstances, including the grounds for sentencing asserted by the Defendant, and no special circumstance exists to the extent that the lower court’s punishment is modified.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

[However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below's ex officio, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since it is obvious that the "1." of Part 9 of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error, among the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below, the "1." of Paragraph 1 is corrected as "" and the "347-2 of the Criminal Act" in the application of the law of the court below is corrected as "computer, etc." and despite the error in the judgment below's correction as "the crime of fraud by use of computers, etc.", the court below did not reverse the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is no difference in the scope of the applicable sentences in the case where the punishment for concurrent crimes by use of computers, etc. was aggravated, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7762