The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstance that the defendant asserts as the reason for appeal (such as the primary charge, the agreement with some victims, etc.) seems to have already been taken into consideration in the sentencing process of the original court.

In light of the fact that the crime of telephone financial fraud in which the defendant participated (the so-called “singing”, hereinafter referred to as “singing”), there is a need to strictly punish subordinate officers in light of the fact that social harm is very serious and that not only the special preventive function of punishment but also the general preventive function should be taken into account. The crime was committed in a pro rata organization through the participation of subordinate officers, but also the fact that the detection of superior officers is difficult.

Furthermore, in light of the specific form of conduct, it is difficult to view that the Defendant actively participated in the crime and actively acquired profits therefrom, and that the degree of participation is less vulnerable.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as shown in the arguments of the court below and the party hearing, there is a change in circumstances in which the defendant recognized his mistake and additionally made an agreement with the victim or restored damage.

Even if the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.