전자금융거래법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.
As to the instant case, there are circumstances such as the following: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant appears to have no economic benefit by the instant crime; (c) the victim was returned; (d) the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime; and (e) the Defendant’s economic situation appears to be considerably difficult. However, even when considering the normal data submitted in the trial as consideration in the process of determining the punishment, it is difficult to evaluate that there was a change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court, even if the lower court did not clearly recognize that the means of access was used for the instant crime, in light of the F dialogue (Evidence No. 17), even if the Defendant did not recognize that the means of access was used for the instant crime, it would have been sufficiently recognizable if he paid considerable attention. The crime of lending the means of access, such as the instant case, requires strict punishment that encouragess considerable social harm.