The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's act under paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a fraud by using computers, etc. cannot be understood as a misunderstanding of legal principles (Fraud part).

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder due to the depression, depression, uneasiness, and delayed symptoms, etc.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) Any person who acquires any benefits to property or has a third party acquire such benefits by making any data processed after inputting a false information or improper order, or inputting or altering the information without any authority into the data processor, such as computer, etc., on the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years

Article 347-2 of the Criminal Act) On the other hand, the defendant's act under paragraph (2) of the crime in the holding of the court below constitutes a crime of fraud by using computers, etc. under the Criminal Act, since it constitutes a crime of fraud by using computers, etc., since it constitutes a crime of fraud, etc. under the Criminal Act, since it constitutes a crime of fraud by using computers, etc.

The defendant's assertion of legal principles is not accepted.

B. As to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant suffers from the depression, depression, uneasiness, and WIG delayed symptoms.

Even if the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions, in light of the fact that he/she possessed a physical card that he/she acquired for two months and settled transportation charges over 50 times, it is not recognized that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions. Therefore,

C. In comparison with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance court’s sentencing discretion.