2. The judgment of the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects the mistake in depth, the defendant bears the hospital expenses of his father who is sick and is economically difficult, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is a crime that provides the so-called “Sishing” fraud with an important means of crime and requires strict punishment in light of the fact that social harm caused by such crime is very serious, and the Defendant was aware of the circumstances that the transferred access medium was used for the so-called “phishing” crime. In fact, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that the money deposited from the damaged party was withdrawn and used; (b) the nature of the crime was very poor; and (c) the damage was not recovered to the injured party; and (d) the Defendant had a record of being punished several times due to the crime of this kind, which 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.