A. The Defendant merely introduced the victim to E, but did not conspired to commit fraud or did not participate in the crime of E.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant conspired with E in collusion with the victim B, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and deceptioned the victim B by receiving a cashier’s check amounting to KRW 50 million from the victim can be fully recognized.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant denies the crime up to this Court and did not agree with the victim.

On the other hand, E paid the full amount of damages to the victim after the crime, but the court below has already considered such circumstances, and there is no particular change in circumstances to consider sentencing after the judgment of the court below.

In full view of all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, criminal record and relationship, motive and background of the instant crime, the consequences of damage, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, because it is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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.