2. The lower court determined a punishment by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) the instant crime was committed on a planned and organized basis against many and unspecified persons, and the so-called “scaming” fraud, and the crime that stores access media for that purpose; (b) the nature of the crime is not very good; and (c) the social harm arising therefrom is serious; (d) the crime of “scaming” is committed in a pro rata manner by taking part in the act of taking part not only in the total liability but also in withdrawal, remittance, solicitation, delivery, etc.; (e) there is a great need to strictly punish such an act of taking part in the act of taking part therein; (c) the number of the crimes was high, and the amount of damage was not recovered at all; (d) the fact that the Defendant was a juvenile; and (e) the Defendant’

Examining the evidence of this case and the above sentencing, the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no change in circumstances that it is unfair to maintain it in the trial and that it is unfair to maintain it as it is.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.