2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not

The defendant is recognized as committing a crime and is against the law.

However, the crime of this case is not only seriously detrimental to the public welfare of the sound development of telecommunications business and the promotion of user convenience, but also social harm is significant in that the so-called largephones generated therefrom become the means of another crime.

In addition to these circumstances, if the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc. as indicated in the instant records and arguments, and the reasons for sentencing of the lower judgment are compared to the circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unreasonable even if all of the circumstances alleged as the grounds for appeal are considered.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.