The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had no intention in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, since the Defendant, at the speech that he would give a loan, installed a display to which a person who was unaware of the name was sent, and transferred the right to use a display to the person who was unaware of the name.

In addition, there is no intention to commit fraud because the Defendant provided an account in his/her name according to the direction of the person who was unable to receive a refund loan at a low interest rate and withdrawn money and exchanged money for merchandise coupons.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the assertion in detail by stating the judgment on each of the above arguments in detail.

A thorough examination of the judgment of the court below by comparison with the records is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it at the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court held that the Defendant did not play a leading role in the instant crime and that there was no benefit acquired from the said crime. However, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and repeated committing the instant crime even though he had the record of criminal punishment several times due to the crime related to the Bosingishing crime, and in light of such circumstances, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have caused the instant crime on the sole basis of care, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant was divided in a serious mind.