2. We examine the judgment, that the Defendant was the first offender in Korea, and that part of the Defendant was found to have been erroneous for the first time in the trial. However, the instant crime is a case in which the Defendant participated in the so-called Bosing criminal act as a delivery of the withdrawn amount, and the degree of participation is more serious than the withdrawal of the withdrawal or the delivery of the means of access located at the end of the organization.

In the light of the characteristics of the Bophishing crime committed in the form of the occupied organization, it is necessary to consider the situation that it is difficult to arrest the entire organization or to recover the amount by fraud, and the adverse effect of the Bophishing crime on the whole society is also determined.

In addition, the victim, such as the fraud of this case, which was prosecuted as a part of the defendant's participation, is three or more victims, and the amount of damage exceeds 40 million won in total.

Nevertheless, the defendant does not make active efforts to recover from damage to the trial, and only has a change to the purport that he will continue to be responsible for the damage.

In light of such circumstances and other circumstances as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, and family environment, there was no change compared to the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed as improper because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion in full view of all the above circumstances.

On the other hand, with respect to the admissibility of evidence of the "police statement protocol againstO" among the evidence presented by the court below, since theO is an accomplice of the crime of this case, Article 312 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies by treating the above statement as an accomplice as the police interrogation protocol, and the defendant did not agree to use it as evidence in the purport of denying its content at the court below. Thus, it is groundless.

However, the O may request from the police to the defendant.