2. The Defendant appears to be against the Defendant, who led to the confession of each of the instant crimes.

AH and AI have been agreed upon from among the persons who have seized AD as described in the ruling in the trial.

However, even before committing each of the crimes in this case, the defendant has been punished for imprisonment for the same kind of crime.

Each of the crimes in this case is very serious in light of means, periods, profits acquired by the defendant, etc.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the grounds for sentencing revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure; Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure); Article 71 subparag. 9, Article 48(2) of the former Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (amended by Act No. 14080, Mar. 22, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) (Article 71 subparag. 1 and 48(2) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (Article 25(1) of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc.); Article 71 subparag. 2(4) of the former Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc.)