The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As new sentencing data was not submitted at the trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant for reasons of sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the sentencing grounds of the lower court. The instant crime was committed in the form of telecommunications fraud, which is organized by many and unspecified persons, with which the nature of the crime is not good, the damage is not significant, and the damage is not completely recovered, and in full view of other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the unreasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That “ May 25, 2017,” attached Table 1 attached to the lower judgment, is deemed to be an obvious clerical error of 105 pages of evidence records, “No. 26, 2017,” and “No. 26, 2017,” and “no. 25, 2017,” and “no. 105,000,000,000).