All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below against the defendants on the summary of the reasons for appeal (Defendant BM and BD: 5 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 5 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within an appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentencing of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s view, to refrain from imposing a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In this case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the new sentencing materials submitted in the appellate court.

It is difficult to evaluate, and the transfer of electronic financial transaction access media requires strict punishment to infringe the safety and reliability of transaction performance and to cause secondary damage, such as singing, etc. The Defendants established a corporation that does not have any substance in order to receive the price by transferring access media and opening an account in the name of the corporation, and transfer several access media after opening the account in the name of the corporation. Defendant J committed the instant crime, even though he was under investigation as a crime of violating the National Sports Promotion Act (LL opening, etc.), during the period of repeated offense, even though he was under investigation as a crime of violation of the same Act (LL opening, etc.) in the judgment of the court below.