The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant was organized to inflict serious damage on many victims and it is not easy to recover damage, and thus, committed a crime, such as entering the Republic of Korea to commit a crime and keeping a large number of means of access (six copies of a physical card) through the delivery of a large number of means of access, with the knowledge that it was used for the crime, and the Defendant was expected to act as a withdrawal of the crime of Bosing, and that the Defendant was expected to withdraw and transfer cash using the physical card which was actually delivered, the fact that the nature of the crime was considerably poor is that the Defendant was considerably disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

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

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the confiscation judgment on No. 14 (the defendant's smartphone) is improper.

Since the confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code is voluntary, the issue of whether to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements of confiscation is left to the court's discretion.