The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court considered the following: (a) when determining the sentence against the Defendant, the lower court considered: (b) when comprehensively taking account of the following: (c) the crime of Bosing was committed in an organized manner; (d) serious damage to the victims; and (e) it is difficult to recover damage therefrom; (b) the number of means of access in custody is large; (c) the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office received a disposition of non-prosecution regarding Bosing fraud; and (d) on May 25, 2018, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office received a disposition of non-prosecution regarding Bosing fraud; (b) the fact that most of the damage amount was not acquired in addition to commission and daily

As above, the lower court determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant and the unfavorable circumstances, and also seems to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.

There is no special change in circumstances that may change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, as well as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. 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 ordered as per Disposition.