2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) health unit; (b) the Defendant recognizes and reflects the crime; and (c) the Defendant is a aiding and abetting offender.

However, even though the Defendant appears to have been fully aware of the seriousness of the crimes of Bosing, due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, one time of suspension of indictment, and one time of fine, the Defendant was deemed to have been aware of the seriousness of the crimes of Bosing. However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant transferred or lent means of access to the means of access; (b) the Defendant actively collected cash and remitted it to accomplices; (c) the victim’s total of four persons; (d) the amount of damage incurred by the instant case is a maximum amount of KRW 35 million up to the trial; (d) the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, present occupation, motive, means, and consequence of the crime; and (e) other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.