The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include: (a) the Defendant appears to have recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant did not have any profit gained by the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant did not wish to punish the Defendant by mutual consent with the victims; and (d) the Defendant did not want to punish the Defendant.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case is a so-called telephone financial fraud crime that obtains money from many unspecified victims by forming an organization, and plans to do so in advance, sharing the roles of each of them, and then sharing them, which is very poor in terms of the nature of the crimes committed against many unspecified victims. Such crimes require strict punishment in light of the fact that it is difficult to crack down and is highly harmful to society, and since the role of the subordinate victim (the role of delivery of passbooks, withdrawal of cash deposited from victims, transfer of money deposited from victims, etc.) such as the defendant performed is an essential element for the crime, taking this into account, it cannot be deemed that the degree of participation is minor, and the defendant committed again the crime of this case, even though he had already been subjected to suspended sentence for the same crime, it is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., which are conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, there is no change of circumstances that can determine the sentence different from the original judgment, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair since the sentence imposed by the Defendant is unlimited. Thus, the Defendant’

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.