2. It is recognized that the judgment defendant is a domestic first offender, and only three storages of the means of access are recognized as the date of participation in the instant crime charged.

However, the crime of this case is one of the cases where the defendant keeps and delivers the means of access used for the so-called Bosing crime by receiving daily allowances, and the degree of the defendant's participation as a whole as a means of access of the host organization cannot be deemed to be minor.

The circumstances where it is difficult to arrest the entire organization or to recover the amount of fraud due to the nature of the Bosing crime committed in the form of the occupied organization, the adverse effect of the Bosing crime on the whole society should also be considered.

The defendant is expected to have been well aware of the danger of the crime of this case as he was investigated in the same case.

In addition, the motive for the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the degree of participation and profit-making, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, which are various conditions for sentencing indicated in the records, do not change compared to the original judgment. In full view of all the above circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed as being too unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit.