The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant recognized the entire crime of this case as well as reflects his/her mistake; and (b) the fact that there was no record of criminal punishment, other than being subject to a disposition of transfer of juvenile protection cases due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, etc.

On the other hand, by forging and using an application for a loan in another person's name, it acquired a large amount of money against many unspecified victims, and until now, it did not recover any damage other than KRW 120,000, the credit card fee for the victim CT Bank.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and various circumstances, including the age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [decision of type] shall be limited to the general fraud [Specialized Person] [Article 1(100,00 won], and where the method of receiving the crime is extremely poor (in the case where the crime of forgery of documents is accompanied by the crime of forgery of documents as a result of the crime of fraud, the crime concerning documents shall not be treated as multiple crimes, and only the sentencing person shall be treated as the sentencing person] In the special aggravation area: The scope of the recommended punishment of the court below, which made a lower sentence by escaping from the lowest sentence of 1 year to 3 years, is unreasonable.

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

[However, since it is apparent that the phrase " around March 26, 2012" in Article 2-d. (2) of the crime of the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the phrase " around March 24, 2012," it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25 (2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.