2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In addition, there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the lower judgment. Moreover, the act of preserving the means of access, such as the instant crime, is the basis of other serious crimes, such as Boscing fraud, and the number of the means of access in which the Defendant has stored is a large number of criminals, and the victim was actually used for the said means of access, and the said means of access was generated due to the actual use of the said means of access, and the Defendant has withdrawn and remitted cash through the means of access. In light of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, even considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, considering the fact that the health status of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife is not good, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too large and it does not seem to have exceeded 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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.