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 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendants, taking into account (i) the fact that the instant crime was committed in a planned and organized manner against many and unspecified persons, and (ii) the nature of the crime is not very good; (iii) Defendant A was involved in the organized crime; and (iv) the degree of his participation in the organized crime is not less obvious; (iv) the confession and rebuttal of all the Defendants; (v) the victims are not subject to punishment; (v) the amount of damage is not significant; and (v) the Defendants do not have any profit from the crime; and (v) Defendant A did not have any criminal power and Defendant B did not have any same criminal power.

As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and taking into account the closure of the Bosing Crime and the necessity of strict punishment, as seen above, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the victims of the crime of fraud were not subject to punishment; (b) the details and period of the crime of this case; (c) the motive and motive of the crime of this case; and (d) the profits the Defendants acquired from the crime of this case and the criminal punishment of the Defendants, etc., it may be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendants goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.