The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. In a case where an appeal against a judgment of conviction in the scope of the trial by this Court is filed, the confirmation of a compensation order is prevented even without an objection to the compensation order, and the compensation order is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). The lower court, which accepted the application of the compensation order by B, the applicant for compensation, partly accepted the application of the compensation order by C, which is the applicant for compensation, and the Defendant did not assert any grounds for appeal against this part, and even if ex officio examination, it cannot find any grounds for revocation or alteration, thereby maintaining

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected his mistake, and that there was no penalty power, except for punishment once imposed due to the damage of property, etc. around 2005.

However, the crime of this case was committed by aiding and abetting the so-called fraud crime, which is a planned and organized crime, by taking many unspecified persons as the object of the crime, even though the defendant committed only the part of the role of collecting and remitting cash.

Even if it is necessary to play an essential role in the realization of criminal benefits, the responsibility for the crime is not easy.

The amount of damage of this case is large to KRW 82 million, and the defendant also acquired allowances of KRW 1460,000 due to the crime of this case.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, and the new circumstances or special changes in circumstances that are likely to be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.