2. The judgment is the circumstances favorable to the defendant that recognized the crime of this case and reflects the fact that the defendant is the first offender, and that the defendant does not seem to have obtained any particular benefit from the crime of this case.

However, since the crime of Bosing consists of organized crimes, causing serious damage to many victims and making it difficult to recover damage difficult, severe punishment is required. The Defendant, while keeping a physical card that can be used for the crime of Bosing, intends to use it as a withdrawal measure of the crime of Bosing, etc., the nature and circumstances of the crime of this case are very good.

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