2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant was living and living conditions of the Defendant; (c) there are extenuating circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime; (d) the Defendant appears to have no benefits acquired by the instant crime; (b) the Defendant immediately returned the amount of damage to the victim; and (c) the Defendant did not have any criminal records of the same kind of criminal records or suspended sentence.

However, the instant crime is an offense that provides an important means of crime to the so-called “Singing” fraud group that is planned and organized against many and unspecified persons. Considering the very serious social harm caused by the singishing crime, it is necessary to strictly punish the act of transferring an access medium. The Defendant’s access medium transferred by the Defendant actually used for the singishing crime, causing damage to the Defendant, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, there is no special change in circumstances that may otherwise determine the sentencing conditions and the punishment differently from the original judgment, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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