2. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime in order to collect the outstanding amount against the victim; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in China to collect the outstanding amount against the victim; (c) the Defendant experienced the Defendant’s business in China; (d) the Defendant was a primary offender with no criminal history; (c) the Defendant entered into a money deposit contract (SC contract) for a third party with the law firm X for the victim by entering into the judgment of the court; and (d) the Defendant deposited KRW 54,625,00 with the compensation for damage.

However, the crime of this case is that the defendant detained female victims for not less than two months for the purpose of collecting claims, and took 158,340 U.S. dollars from the victim's family members, and the amount of damage is reasonable, and the victim and his family members were suffering from severe mental pain due to the above crime.

Furthermore, the Defendant did not make efforts to recover the damage of the victim, and did not receive any remedy from the victim.

Examining the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which appears in the record and the theory of change, including the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances as seen earlier, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

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.