The judgment below

Part 2 and 3 of the Judgment (including forfeiture for No. 20, 21, 27, and 30) shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles as to Article 3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Defendant is guilty, even though it does not constitute “delivery of access media” under Article 6(3)2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (an offence of No. 1 on the market: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, additional collection, and a crime of No. 2 and No. 3 on the market: Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The determination of sentencing on the allegation of unfair sentencing regarding the first crime is based on the statutory penalty, and the determination of discretion made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As to the crime No. 1 as indicated in the instant judgment, the lower court: (a) has a high risk of recidivism; (b) negative impact on the society as a whole; and (c) the Defendant has a record of having been sentenced to the suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime; and (d) the Defendant is