All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair punishment)’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant has led to the confession and reflect of all of the instant crimes; (b) the attempted crime was committed; (c) the Defendant appears to have no profit acquired from the instant crime; and (d) the fact that there is no economic situation as a basic livelihood recipient.

On the other hand, the Defendant had been punished twice due to a violation of the same type of Electronic Financial Transactions Act; in particular, on December 20, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of suspended sentence for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which was sentenced to six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and again committed the crime of violating the said Electronic Financial Transactions Act during the period of one month and one month, and two months have not passed thereafter; and the Defendant committed the instant attempted fraud since the means of access was actually used for the scaming crime; the Defendant was actually used for the scaming crime; and the crime of attempted fraud of this case was involved in the Defendant as “cash withdrawal” in the scaming crime with a high risk of social harm, and the commission of

As above.