A. In order to obtain a loan from a lender by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, he was required to temporarily use a check card, etc. and did not transfer it.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant did not verify the borrower’s personal information, office, etc. while obtaining a telephone from which loans are possible, and did not determine the time, place, method, etc. of receiving a return of the check card, etc.. Around July 2013, the Defendant issued a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the check card was used in the scam and was delegated the temporary use of the check for the purpose of lending and being investigated by the police. Accordingly, the Defendant transferred the check card, etc. to only one year after he received a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that the check card was used in the scam and was delegated the temporary use of the check card, etc. for the purpose of lending. Thus, the Defendant is deemed to have transferred the means of access, such as the scam card.

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

B. In full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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