2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Although the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, the act of lending the means of access, such as the instant crime, is highly likely to be used for the crime, and thus, is highly harmful to society. The actual fact of the means of access leased by the Defendant, the damage incurred due to the use of the means of access in the crime of fraud, the Defendant was subject to the disposition of suspending indictment twice due to the suspicion of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and other sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, and environment, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive and does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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 on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.