The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s punishment should be determined within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the Defendant’s sentencing, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s simple participation in the commission of and aiding and abetting the commission of the crime by the influences in name; (b) the amount of damage is relatively small; (c) the primary offender; (d) the Defendant’s act of aiding and abetting the phishing crime; and (e) the Defendant’s act of aiding and abetting the phishing crime; and (e) the Defendant appears to have not been able to obtain, and the Defendant appears to have never been able to recover

The crime of Bosing is not easy to recover from damage, and it is highly necessary to strictly punish the victim or members of the society because it causes serious adverse effects on the trust relationship in the whole society as a result of the crime to make multiple victims or financial institutions, etc. who committed such crime, and as the communication of the crime of Bosing, the accomplice F who is at a lower level than the defendant 8 months is sentenced to imprisonment and its decision became final and conclusive in light of the transaction flow, even if the defendant confessions the crime, and takes into account the circumstances agreed with the victim D, the sentence against the defendant cannot be avoided.

B. In full view of various circumstances, including the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the lower court is too remote, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.