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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In addition, the Defendant is both aware of and against all of the crimes.

It is difficult to say that the amount of damage caused by the criminal defendant's direct participation is high.

There is no specific penalty power in addition to a fine once due to this type of crime.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of Bophishing, in which the defendant participated, is a very bad, and is also a serious crime that is likely to cause a serious harm to an unspecified number of victims in a short period of time, has an adverse effect on trust among members of society, and undermine the financial transaction order in our society.

The Defendant, in accordance with the instructions of the Singman, received the scam card and deposited the scam damage amount with the scam card, and played the role of the so-called “cash withdrawal” to deposit the scam into the account given instructions. The Defendant, despite being aware that the scam was used for the scaming crime, was in custody of several scam cards from the employees of the Scaming.

In light of the fact that the defendant had a clear perception that he was involved in the crime from the beginning along with the degree of participation in the crime above, the nature of the crime seems to be greater.

In addition, the defendant has not been able to recover from damage to the victim until the trial is held.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

The above circumstances examined by the court below and the trial court are the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.