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 fact that a criminal defendant led to confession and reflects on his/her offense is favorable to the criminal defendant.

However, the crime of this case was involved in the crime of Bosing fraud by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the crime of Bosing was committed in a systematic and planned manner; (b) the crime of Bosing was committed in a systematic and planned manner; (c) the damage to unspecified or many citizens was caused; and (d) the subordinate employees' participation in the act of taking part in subordinate members, such as withdrawal, collection, and remittance; (b) there is a need to strictly punish the subordinate employees; (c) the defendant has multiple criminal convictions; and (d) the records and arguments of this case, there are no circumstances in which the lower court’s punishment imposed on the Defendant is appropriate; and (d) it is deemed that the lower court’s judgment of sentencing was evaluated to have exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion or that it is unreasonable to maintain it as it

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s decision shall delete “no criminal record or fine exceeding the same type of criminal record” in the 5th to 12 criminal records.