2. The judgment of the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant that all of the instant crimes are recognized and reflected.

On the other hand, the crime of Bosing consists of organized crimes, causing serious damage to many victims, and making it difficult to recover damage difficult, so heavy punishment is required. The defendant's participation in the crime is not easy by acting as collection measures, and the criminal act of taking money by intrusion on the house of the victim was also dangerous. The majority of the victims are the majority of the victims, the amount of fraud is a large amount of money, the victims' damage was not recovered until the trial, and the fact that no agreement has been reached is unfavorable to the defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the lower court in the

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

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