The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution, probation, and community service order) of the lower court (e.g., 180 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant partially repaid the amount of damage to the victim, and that the victim does not want punishment against the Defendant by mutual consent.

However, the crime of this case was committed by aiding and abetting the commission of the victims to commit the crime by taking part in the Defendant’s act of collecting and delivering cash from the victim’s money. In light of the method and content of the crime, etc., the crime is highly likely to be committed in a systematic and planned manner, and thus, the crime of Bosing is highly likely to cause serious social harm, such as causing serious damage to many victims. Therefore, it is necessary to punish the crime of this case. The Defendant has the record of being subject to criminal punishment on several occasions due to the transfer of means of access, etc. regarding Bosing in the previous case. In particular, on October 19, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspended sentence for 8 months due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and was sentenced to a suspended sentence on October 27, 2016, and again committed the crime of this case even if the judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 2016. There is no change in the lower court’s age, character and behavior, circumstances, and circumstances of the crime of this case.