전자금융거래법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of probation, and 80 hours of community service) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.
2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant is divided into his mistake, and that the defendant seems to have no profit in fact.
However, considering the fact that the crime of this case is a crime that provides the so-called "Sing" fraud that is closely planned and organized against many and unspecified persons with an important means of crime, it is necessary to strictly punish the act of transferring the means of access when considering the social harm caused by the "Singing" crime is very serious. The means of access in this case is actually used for "Singing" crime and multiple victims have occurred, the defendant has the record of being sentenced to the suspension of indictment once for the same crime, 5 times of a fine, suspension of execution, 1 time of a suspended sentence, 5 times of a fine for the same crime, one time of a suspended sentence, and 5 times of a suspended sentence, there is no change of circumstances to determine differently between the court below and the sentence, and it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is unfair because all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[However, the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below are three types of "debit cards", and the application of the law to 1.0 "the pertinent law and the choice of punishment for the criminal facts of 1.0" are written errors in the corresponding law for the criminal facts of 1.0, and the application of the law to 2.0's "the choice of imprisonment" was added to mistake, and the application of the law to 3.0's "1. commercial concurrence": Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the criminal fact is heavier).