2. The fact that the judgment defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected against the defendant, and that the defendant faithfully cooperated with the investigation is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea to commit the instant crime for the purpose of committing the scaming crime, and the crime of scam was organized to inflict serious damage on many victims, and it is not easy to recover damage, and thus, requires strict punishment is 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.