2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The recognition of a crime is recognized; there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the same criminal history and a fine since 2000; the Defendant was actually involved in, and contributed to, the instant crime; the profits that the Defendant acquired by, is not significant compared to the scale of damage; and the profits that the Defendant acquired by, appears to have not been significantly higher than the scale of damage; and the current situation of basic supply and demand conditions are not good and support for the mother of the aged.

However, the act of receiving similar benefits is very harmful to society as a whole by harming the foundation of sound economic activities in our society, distorted market economy order, distorted many unspecified victims in a short period of time, and leading them to the overall society. Thus, there is a need to strictly punish the instant crime. The instant crime consists of multiple unspecified persons, leading up to 2,200 investors, and the amount of similar investment proceeds is extremely large.

The court below seems to have determined a punishment by taking the above circumstances into consideration equally, and there is no change in circumstances that make a different determination of the punishment of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the period of crime, Defendant’s age, sexual conduct and environment, background, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment does not seem to be unfair by excessively exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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 groundless.