The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendant to the said punishment.

The circumstances cited by the defendant as the reasons for appeal are the factors that have already been determined by the original court and sufficiently taken into account, and there is no circumstance that can be specially considered in the trial, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing.

Specifically, it is true that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects his mistake.

However, the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act requires strict punishment due to a large risk of leading to other crimes, such as licensing, etc., and damage was actually caused by the Defendant’s lending cream card.

The defendant has committed the same type of crime without being aware of even though he had been under the same crime (the present suspended period was the same).