All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal has been sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine at the same time the defendant and the prosecutor's argument on the grounds of appeal on unreasonable sentencing.

The crime of keeping the means of electronic financial transactions of this case is the custody of physical cards, etc. to be used for any other serious crime, such as singishing, and the crime of singishing is deemed to have a large amount of damage to a large number of victims within a short period of time, and there is a structural characteristic that is not easy to recover damage, and thus there is a need to strictly punish a person who directly or indirectly participated in the crime since the trust relationship with the entire society has to have a serious adverse effect on the whole society. The defendant not only stored the means of access as stated in the crime of this case, but also appears to have played a role of withdrawing the funds of singishing, such as withdrawing cash transferred to another means of access that has not been prosecuted and delivering it to the staff of the fraud group, while the defendant has no record of criminal punishment for about nine months since entering the Republic of Korea on December 21, 2010 to the crime of this case, and profits that the defendant has not earned from each of the crimes of this case are more favorable to the defendant.

In light of the above circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, growth environment, motive of crime, circumstances after crime, etc. as well as various conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and pleadings, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, it is deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s allegation above are without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant and the prosecutor.