2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and is under the suspicion of mistake.

It is difficult to say that the amount of damage caused by the criminal defendant's direct participation is high.

There is no other penalty power in Korea.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of Bophishing, in which the defendant participated, is a very bad, and is also a serious crime that is likely to cause a serious harm to an unspecified number of victims in a short period of time, has an adverse effect on trust among members of society, and undermine the financial transaction order in our society.

The Defendant, in accordance with the instructions of the singingman, sent the scam card, deposited the scam damage with the scam card, and deposited the scam into the instructions account. The Defendant, despite being aware that the scam was used for the scaming crime, was in custody of the scam card from the personnel of the scaming.

In light of the fact that the defendant was aware that he was involved in the crime from the beginning along with the degree of participation in the crime above, the nature of the crime seems to be greater.

In addition, up to the trial, victims have not been recovered from damage.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Various conditions of sentencing as examined in the above circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of crime, and circumstances after crime, and the Supreme Court’s Sentencing Committee.