The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Litigation Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, has a unique area for the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The conditions of sentencing are not changed compared with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and the sentencing of the lower court was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion in full view of all the reasons for sentencing specified in the records of the instant case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below's application of the law of the court below is dismissed.

1. Of the pertinent legal provisions and the selected sentence regarding criminal facts, the part of “Article 49 subparag. 4 subparag. 2 and Article 6 subparag. 3 subparag. 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the transfer of access media)” was corrected to “Article 49 subparag. 4 subparag. 1 and Article 6 subparag. 3 subparag. 1 (the transfer of access media) of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act” and the prosecutor applied for an amendment to the amendment to the bill of amendment of the law applied in the trial at the same time. The court permitted the amendment, but the court did not affect the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense by clearly correcting the provisions applicable to the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, the subject of adjudication was substantially changed.

As such, the relevant part of the judgment of the court below is not reversed ex officio.