2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances and circumstances, the lower court’s determination on the transfer of the means of access in this case does not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s act of transferring the means of access in this case enables scaming crimes; (b) the Defendant committed a crime using the means of access in favor of him/her; and (c) the Defendant’s act is against the initial offender; and (d) there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing in the trial; and (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (e) all of the sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, including the circumstances after the crime.

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.