2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a sentence close to the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set by the sentencing committee of the above Supreme Court, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) Defendant A’s assertion: (i) in an unfavorable condition; (b) the instant fraud committed by a multiple number of victims, by sharing the roles of a large number of unspecified victims, by defrauding approximately KRW 4.3 billion in total; (c) the manual is organized and intelligent; (d) the amount of deceptive fraud is large; and (e) the victims use the similar receiving act prohibited by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes; (e) the victims’ request for return of investment money; (b) the victims were detained; (c) the victims are responsible for the recovery of the damage; and (d) the victims are passively responsible for the recovery of the damage; and (e) the victims are paid a certain amount under the pretext of investment earnings, etc. to a large number of victims; (e) the victims who have made an unreasonable investment in a short period, are also responsible for the occurrence and expansion of damage; and (e) the victims agreed with some victims.

The judgment of the court below seems to have been properly determined by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that could be evaluated differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below up to the trial of the court below, and Defendant A asserted that it was merely a change in the situation to be used by Defendant D, a main offender, but Defendant A established Company D, a direct similar recipient company, and directly approve it in the letter of resolution on expenditure, etc., and held a business presentation, etc. against victims and held it against the victims.