The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and committed each of the crimes of this case; (b) the extent of damage caused by each of the crimes of this case is not much serious; and (c) the defendant is relatively old; (d) there are many records of the crime of theft and Electronic Financial Transactions Act; (b) the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he/she had committed a repeated crime due to the same crime; (c) the defendant escaped during the trial of the court below; (d) the defendant escaped in part of the crime of this case during the escape period; (e) there was a bad degree of damage caused by the defendant's aiding and abetting the crime of this case; (e) the damage amount was significantly high; (e) the damage amount was not recovered properly; (e) there was no change in special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing; (e) the defendant's character and behavior, environment, relationship to victims; and (e) the motive, means and result of the crime of this case;

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act concerning criminal facts of the original judgment is clear that the “Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the same Act” is a clerical error in the “Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the same Act.” As such, ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure