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 Defendant, despite the recognition that his account is used for an unlawful purpose, receives compensation, and withdraws the transferred amount from the account to the singing employee by providing the singing employee with the singing employee to commit the singing fraud, thereby facilitating the singing fraud, and thus, the liability for the singing is heavy; the crime of the singing is organized, commercialized, and differentiated, which has a significant social hazard; the role of the “measures to withdraw” that withdraw the amount of damage is very likely to be criticized in that it is essential for the singing crime; the amount of damage to the victim’s account paid in the name of the Defendant is not recovered at least 480,000,00 won.

However, on the other hand, the Defendant recognized a criminal act and was in depth against the Defendant, there was no record of criminal punishment including the same force, and the number of participation in the instant criminal act was limited to once, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the amount transferred was a final and conclusive amount of damage caused by telephone financial fraud.

It is difficult to see the fact that there is no economic benefit that the defendant actually acquired in return for the crime of this case.

The court below determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, and motive, background, means, and means of the crime of this case.