2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: although the defendant's mistake is recognized, and there are some reasons to regard the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes of this case that the defendant started to commit the crime with the knowledge of her home delivery date, and it seems that the period during which the defendant participated in each of the crimes of this case is relatively long. However, the defendant's crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of this case was lent the means of access used as an important means of crime of so-called "Sing". Each of the crimes of this case in which the defendant participated was involved is "Sing" used as an important means of crime. Each of the crimes of this case committed by the defendant is "Singing," which is sufficiently planned and organized against many and unspecified persons, and there is a need to strictly punish them. The defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being able to do so during the period of suspended sentence of imprisonment due to fraud, etc., and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case without being able to do so, and other circumstances that the defendant committed too unfair.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

[However, among the judgment of the court below, the "victim D" in Part 5 of the judgment of the court below is clearly erroneous entry of "former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015)" and "Electronic Financial Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 13069, Jan. 20, 2015)" in Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.