A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s arguments.

The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant seems to have much criminal proceeds acquired by the crime of this case, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment other than fines for the same crime.

Meanwhile, the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, like the instant case, is highly likely to be abused for the so-called “singishing” crime, and thus requires strict punishment therefor. The Defendant transferred the means of access to the past in the past and received a disposition of suspension of indictment on May 29, 2015, and had been sentenced to a fine for the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on June 17, 2015, but the Defendant committed the instant crime on or around August 2015, which has not long been punished, repeatedly, and the Defendant committed the instant crime on or around May 26, 2014, even if he was released from the said crime during the period of repeated crime.

Considering such overall circumstances and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be too weak or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since each appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.