2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, and the Defendant did not have any previous attitude.

A period during which the defendant participated in the crime is relatively short of one month, the number of victims and the amount of damage are relatively low, and there is no benefit that the defendant gains from the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, upon the proposal of Ma-dong AR, left China and joined the Bosing Criminal Organization as a counselor, and misrepresenting the investigator. The Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant will work as a counselor at the Call Center in China from AR before leaving China. The degree of participation in the crime is not easy, such as inducing AT and W to participate in the crime and introducing AR.

Since the Singishing crime is highly harmful to society by systematically and systematically against many unspecified victims, causing a big economic difficulty to the victims, and impairing the trust among the members of society, it is necessary to strictly punish the subordinate participants.

In addition, the victims of this case did not completely recover from the damage.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, the background of the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime, the means and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

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

However, the facts of the judgment of the court below are as follows: Paragraph 1 (4) and the last 2 (2).