2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing grounds are already reflected in the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and there is no particular change in sentencing conditions on the grounds that new sentencing data are not submitted in the trial. The Defendant’s violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Guarantee of Secrecy are not only to disrupt the security and reliability of financial transactions, but also to form the basis for other serious crimes, such as scaming, etc., and there is no liability for such crime. Although it was clearly known that the Defendant was involved in the scaming crime, even though he/she committed each of the instant offenses on September 24, 2019, even though he/she was aware of the fact that the Defendant was involved in the scaming crime, the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be excessively beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.