2. In criminal litigation law that takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In relation to the establishment of a legal entity, the Defendant asserted that, in relation to the establishment of a legal entity, the Defendant only sought advice and advice on the establishment of a legal entity on the Internet, No. 1 through No. 4 stated in attached Table 1 of the List of Offenses in the judgment of the lower court, and, in relation to the establishment of an Internet telephone terminal, the Defendant was not specifically aware of the crimes committed once a year, and if committed more than five offenses, D is detained, and the degree of his/her participation is lower than that of the Defendant’s horse delivered to K.

B, the principal offender of the instant crime, at the prosecutor’s office and the trial of the party, mainly led D to the instant crime, took overall management of the overall affairs, and made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was able to assist in the instant crime.

However, even according to the statement B, since B mainly invested money in the crime of this case and did not participate directly in the work, the specific contents of the crime are gathered. The police police decided that the defendant was an accomplice in the establishment method of the corporation, telephone opening method, communication of expenses, and the role of solving the problem.

there is a statement.

In addition, as stated in detail in the court below, D, C, L, and K, other accomplices, are in charge of B in conformity with the main parts, and next D.