2. It is recognized that the judgment is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant led to confession and reflects the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not have any other criminal record except for one-time fine; and (c) the profits acquired by the Defendant from the instant crime do not reach the total amount of defraudation.

However, as in the instant case, the so-called “Sishing” fraud crime, like the instant case, is a crime committed in a systematic and planned manner against many unspecified persons, and there is a high need to strictly punish it because of its social harm, and the Defendant joined the organization of the Heishing crime in China, and the Defendant was in charge of directly deceiving the victims by misrepresenting himself as a counselor at the call center, and the form and degree of participation in the instant crime are considerably significant; the victims of the instant crime are majority, and the total amount of fraud exceeds 2.2 billion won; however, the victims are not recovered most; however, there is no change of circumstances favorable to the Defendant; the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, criminal records, and criminal records; and the details and result of the instant crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unfair because it is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of unjust sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.