2. The judgment is that the defendant made confession of the crime of this case against mistake, the number of the means of access that the defendant transferred to the loan fraud group is less than two, the above means of access was not acquired at all by building the means of access, and the fact that the defendant is in physical disability 2 is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of so-called "wishing, etc.", in which the defendant participated, is not very good for committing a systematic and planned crime, such as that it significantly affects the unspecified number of victims and the trust relationship with the whole society. Considering the structural characteristics of the crime and the current investigation conditions where it is not easy to detect and arrest the criminal due to the operation of the organization in the form of occupation, it is necessary to strictly punish the person who has participated in the crime in order to eradicate such crime. The defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the repeated crime during the period of repeated crime, and the defendant committed the crime of this case without having been sentenced to more than five times including the punishment of the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, the background and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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