2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include: (a) there was no record that the defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime before committing the instant crime; (b) there was a possibility of being tried concurrently with the crime of the previous offense in the judgment of the court below which sentenced the suspension of execution; and (c) his mistake

However, the crime of this case is a so-called “singing” crime committed in a planned, systematic, and intelligent manner against many and unspecified persons, with a significant social hazard, and the defendant made considerable contribution to the realization of the crime of this case, such as withdrawing and delivering the amount of damage to his accomplices over several months as “cash withdrawal scheme,” and other accomplices have made a contribution to the realization of the crime of this case. The other accomplices have continued to commit the crime of this case without suspending the crime even after the arrest of B, and under the direction of the general responsibility, they continued to do so. Although the amount of damage from the crime of this case exceeds 448 million won in total, even though the victims have not recovered from damage until now, the victims’ age, character and behavior, environment, the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the court below’s punishment is too unfair even if considering the above circumstances, even if considering the above circumstances.

3. As such, the appeal by the defendant is without merit and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The "one year of imprisonment" of the first criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below is "one year and two months of imprisonment", and the "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act: The relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the crime 1. The applicable provisions of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment are clearly written. It is obvious that the case is "Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act" as stated in the judgment of the court below.