The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant took part in the crime to obtain profits with a well-known knowledge of the seriousness of the crime, such as: (a) the crime of Bosing was committed against the Defendant; (b) the fact that the crime of Bosing was committed against the victim E, P, and agreed with the victim; (c) the victim AT recovered KRW 7,99,000 from the Financial Supervisory Commission to the amount of damage 10,000,000; and (d) the Defendant took part in the crime to obtain profits with a considerable degree of damage from the account as the victim D, etc. in relation to the commission of the crime; (d) the Defendant took part in the crime to obtain profits with a well-known knowledge of the seriousness of the crime; (e) the damage was not completely recovered; and (e) the damage was one-time fine of fraud in 2017.

In full view of the fact that there is no change in circumstances in the court below’s sentencing to change its sentencing, and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health, circumstances leading to a criminal act, means and result, size of the criminal act, and circumstances after the criminal act, which can be known through records and pleadings, there is no ground to find out that the sentence imposed by the court below is reasonable, and further, it is deemed that the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion or that it is unreasonable to maintain it as it is.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, the Supreme Court en banc Decision is therefore.