The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, the crime of this case, in which the defendant participated, is so-called “scaming crime,” which is a so-called “scam crime,” and is highly harmful to society, such as planned and organized against many and unspecified persons, impairing trust among the members of society, etc., in order to eradicate it due to the nature of the scaming crime committed by the participating actors through thorough division business, there is a need to strongly cope with the crime regardless of the role of the participating actors or the diversity of profits acquired from the crime. It is also true in view of the fact that the acquired amount of money from each crime of this case

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term “the pertinent provision of the Act on 1. Criminal Crimes and the choice of punishment” in the judgment of the court below shall be “the choice of imprisonment” under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act and the corresponding provision of the Act on 1. Criminal Crimes.