The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (10 months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and the prosecution was instituted only for the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, considering that it was not clearly known even if the Defendant was to be the means for the instant crime at the time of committing the instant crime.

There is no history of criminal punishment against the defendant in the Republic of Korea.

However, the transfer of electronic financial transaction access media is a crime that is an essential means for the crime that causes serious social harm, such as phishing crimes, and it is necessary to eradicate such a crime.

It appears that the account linked to the other person's physical card, etc., which was the object of the instant crime, was used for the instant crime. In light of the developments leading up to the instant crime and the specific process of its implementation, the Defendant appears to have had a considerable degree of intent to use the instant other person's physical card and the account linked with it for the instant crime.

Upon receipt of C’s instructions, the Defendant carried out the role of de facto withdrawal by withdrawing and remitting money deposited into another’s account linked with C’s check.

The court below sentenced the defendant to imprisonment by taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime was committed. Such sentencing of the court below seems to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and circumstances alleged by the defendant in the trial of a party are considered sufficiently in determining the punishment at the court below, and there are no other new data to change the sentencing of the court below.

Therefore, the punishment sentenced by the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too large.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.