2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected the mistake, and that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment in the Republic of Korea before the instant crime was committed.

However, the crime of this case is a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by taking part in the Defendant’s act of withdrawing the damage amount of KRW 17.2 million between eight victims of the crime of this case and by taking custody of the access medium to use the above crime in the process. In light of the method and content of the crime, the crime is very poor and very heavy, in light of the crime method and content, etc., the crime of Bosing is very poor and planned, and it is difficult to regulate the crime, and it is very difficult to recover damage. Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish the victim since it is very bad in society. In light of the fact that there were many kinds of circumstances such as the Defendant’s act of withdrawing the damage amount from the Defendant’s domestic bank account, and the Defendant’s act of taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s act of taking account of the following factors: the Defendant’s act of taking account of the fact that the Defendant’s act of withdrawing the damage amount and taking into account the risk and necessity of withdrawing the money transfer; the Defendant’s act of withdrawing the money was more important than the Defendant’s act of deception.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.