A. The sentence of the Defendant (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the entire crimes of the instant case as one of the victims of the instant fraud, and made an agreement with 11 victims of the instant fraud [11 victims [2017 senior group 3658 senior group / [2017 senior group / [3658 senior group / [2017 senior group / [2017 senior group 5882] and compensation for the damage therefrom], etc. are favorable circumstances.

On the other hand, in consideration of the so-called Internet goods fraud crime committed by the defendant against many unspecified victims in a planned and repeated manner, the crime's nature is very poor, and a significant damage has not been recovered until the trial. The defendant was assigned access media connected to another person's account for the purpose of preventing additional fraud even though he was designated as such, and thereby causes confusion in the investigation by using another person's resident registration number in order to conceal his status at the time of arrest as a flagrant offender. The defendant committed the crime of the same kind (violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act by taking over the access media), violation of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act by taking over the access media, and the amount of damage (total 74 million won) and released from the court during the period of repeated crime, and then committed each of the crimes of this case at a disadvantage.

If the details of damage recovery for six victims confirmed in the above circumstances are excluded from the victim BG (amount of damage KRW 940,00,000), it is difficult to view all of the circumstances prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment as a special change in circumstances (see reference materials submitted by the counsel on March 8, 2018), the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing sentencing committee of the Supreme Court, and other Defendant’s age, gender, etc.