2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). It is recognized that the Defendant was fully aware of the instant crime and that the proceeds acquired from the instant crime cannot be seen as being enjoyed together with D, which is the principal offender.

However, it seems that the guarantee certificate prepared by the defendant has played a critical role in the realization of D's crime, and the fraud of this case was not completely recovered in KRW 100 million.

In addition, taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, occupation, family relation (the wife and child to be supported), criminal record (five times a fine), and criminal record, even if considering equity with cases where a judgment becomes final and conclusive at the same time as a crime of aiding and abetting fraud, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is not heavier.

3. Therefore, 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. It is so decided as per Disposition.