Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, and fine of three million won) declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine both Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

A commits the so-called “Sing” crime that actually causes damage to an unspecified number of victims in a planned and systematic manner, and the nature of the crime in this case, such as the keeping of the means of access for electronic financial transactions, is not very good. The role of so-called “singing” of the above Defendant’s performance is not that of the above Defendant’s liability as an essential part for the establishment of the crime.

On the other hand, Defendant A is against the truth that the instant crime was committed, and again, did not commit the same mistake, and there is no profit actually acquired due to the instant crime.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances where the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as the degree of damage caused by the instant Bophishing crime, Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, the details and details of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it is not deemed that the sentence is too hot or too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant A and the prosecutor is without merit.

B. The instant crime of having transferred the means of access to Defendant B’s electronic financial transactions is likely to cause an unspecified number of victims by abusing the means of access to various criminal acts, and is likely to cause damage to the trust and safety of electronic financial order, and the liability for such crime is not provided against the law. In fact, the passbook, check card, etc., which Defendant B transferred to, was used for the crime.

However, Defendant B is the case.