2. The fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes and there is no previous conviction exceeding the fine is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, since the injured victim wants to be punished by the defendant, the defendant has a record of being suspended from indictment twice due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and the means of access used in electronic financial transactions can be used for several crimes, there is a need to punish the means of access more heavily. In fact, the means of access leased by the defendant is a factor that imposes a sentence disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions that may be newly considered in this court compared to the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.