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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The so-called “ Bosing” crime, such as the instant case, is a crime of deceiving many unspecified victims in a systematic and planned manner by sharing the roles of a large number of people, and the nature of the crime is not very good, and the crime is serious, and it is difficult to arrest the entire organization in the form of the organization. As such, even if a certain assistant participated in the crime, there is a great need to strictly punish and prevent recurrence, and the Defendant has performed an essential role in the completion of the sosing crime and the realization of profits, and has forged a document in the process.

However, the court below decided to the effect that the defendant attempted to surrenders himself to the victim immediately after the crime of this case, and divided his mistake in depth up to the trial of the party, and that he participated in the crime of this case in the course of seeking jobs after being urged to resign from the workplace due to the Corronas infection situation, and that the whole amount of damage was paid and agreed to pay part of the amount to the victim. However, the court below decided that the defendant paid the victim the whole amount of damage by paying the victim KRW 5,00,000 on April 3, 2020, and KRW 5,000 on May 8, 2020 (the trial record No. 32 through 35 of the trial record). The defendant paid and agreed with the victim the victim, the profits acquired by the defendant as the crime of this case are insignificant, and there was no history of punishment exceeding the fine and there was no previous conviction in the same way that the defendant had been favorable to the defendant.