The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the above sentence to the Defendant on the grounds of sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. Circumstances favorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial, such as the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, environment, etc., are already determined by the lower court, and are sufficiently considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial. Although the Defendant has led to a serious threat of social harm, the Defendant was involved in the crime, such as the Defendant’s confession and reflects against the Defendant, but it cannot be deemed that the degree of participation is minor, such as the fact that the Defendant took part in the criminal act of using financial institutions, and the receipt of the amount of damage from the victims, and the amount of damage reaches approximately KRW 163 million,000,000,000 from the victims, prior to the instant crime, the Electronic Financial Transactions Act was committed.