The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant asserts that, on the grounds of the appeal of this case, the punishment of the court below against the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In this regard, the circumstances that the defendant reflects his mistake, that the defendant has a history of being punished once a minor fine punishment, and that there is no record of being punished for the crime of the same kind, and that he voluntarily surrenders his crime and has received the investigation in good faith are recognized.

However, the crime of this case is the so-called Bosishing organized crime which causes a lot of damage not only to individuals of the victims but also to our society, and the defendant is very serious in participating in the crime as a medium of access to the entire criminal organization and a measure to recruit staff.

The period of crime is not short, and there are many times, and the amount of damage is so enormous that the total amount of 280 million won exceeds.

Nevertheless, the defendant has not made any effort to recover damage to the trial.

On the other hand, the defendant did so.

Even if the court voluntarily mitigated the self-denunciation, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment, and the court below did not separately reduce the self-denunciation.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed illegal (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do12041, Dec. 22, 2011). Examining the fact that the sentencing of the lower court was examined, the lower court seems to have already taken into account the circumstances of the Defendant voluntarily surrendered in sentencing as favorable circumstances in sentencing.

In light of the background and method of the instant crime, degree of damage and recovery of damage, motive for the instant crime, degree of punishment, records of punishment, sentencing guidelines for organized fraud committed against many unspecified victims, and other circumstances, which form the conditions for sentencing, as shown in the records and arguments at the trial and trial, do not change compared to the court below. In full view of all the above circumstances, the sentencing of the court below is too unfair because it exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion.