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's profit from the crime of this case is not much significant.

However, since the crime of Bosing was organized to inflict serious damage on many victims and it is not easy to recover damage, it is required to severely punish them. The Defendant was easy to commit the crime of Bosing by delivering or keeping nine copies of the physical card to be used for the crime of Bosing, and thus, it is not easy to contain the crime, and the Defendant was also aware of his arrest to his accomplice, causing interference with the investigation, and the circumstances that the retaliation was not possible are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

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. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.