2. The fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, and there is no previous conviction exceeding the same kind and fine, and the Defendant was involved in the instant fraud as an aiding and abetting offender, and the amount of damage is less than the amount of damage, and there is no benefit that the Defendant acquired from the instant crime is more favorable.

However, the Defendant took over a large quantity of access media from the personnel of Boishing, withdrawn the money remitted by the victims, and took part in the criminal conduct of Boishing by remitting money to the account designated by Boishing Organization.

In light of such serious social harm of the phishing crime and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the nature of the crime is inferior, and the damage of the fraud was not recovered until the conviction of the case.

In full view of the records and arguments of this case, there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that can be newly considered in the trial of the party, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, sex, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court's punishment is too unreasonable.

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.