The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Although the Defendant had no economic benefits from the instant crime, even though the Defendant was involved in the instant crime, despite the fact that the Defendant had been investigated by being involved in the instant crime, there was a lack of awareness of the instant crime, such as lending a physical card to the name and non-defluence of the second instance, and the Defendant actually incurred the sing victim using the physical card that was leased by the Defendant.

The lower court determined a punishment in consideration of such overall circumstances, and there is no new reason to change the sentence of the lower court in the first instance.

When comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, health status (the suffering from heart disease, etc.), motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the deliberation of the court below and the party, the punishment sentenced by the court below is not hot since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.