All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, there is no change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant and the prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing appear to have been reflected in the lower court’s sentencing grounds. The act of lending the means of access for electronic financial transactions is deemed to have already been reflected in the Defendant’s promise to compensate. Since the act of lending the means of access for electronic financial transactions may be used as a means of another crime undermining the security and reliability of electronic financial transactions and as such, it is necessary to strictly punish the means of access for electronic financial transactions. The fact that the means of access actually leased by the Defendant is used to commit the instant crime. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and the mistake appears to have been recovered to the victim, and the Defendant’s primary crime is considered favorable to each Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the defendant and the prosecutor.