The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the defendant (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment appears to have the attitude of the Defendant to make a confession of all the crimes of this case and to reflect in depth the mistake, the fact that the Defendant paid part of the damage to the victim who consulted directly by telephone at the court below, that the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment prior to the crime of this case, and that the Defendant was less than the age of 19 years at the time of the crime of this case

However, the sentencing of the court below seems to have been made in full consideration of such circumstances, and there is no change in the special sentencing conditions that can be newly considered in the appellate court.

In particular, the Defendant took part in the so-called “singishing” crime, which is organized and planned against an unspecified number of unspecified victims, and such a “singishing crime” crime is very likely to undermine the safety and order of trading, and public trust.

The defendant served as a telephone counselor who is an incentive book, and the defendant's role is essential in the Bosing criminal organization.

The amount of fraud caused by the criminal defendant's participation exceeds KRW 140 million.

In these circumstances, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and the punishment cases of other accomplices (the Defendant, the team leader, was sentenced to minor punishment than the Defendant).

However, according to the records, E was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and ten months, and the judgment became final and conclusive) and all of the sentencing conditions in the records and theories of change. In full view of all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant, even if considering the various circumstances asserted by the Defendant, E was in excess of the scope of reasonable discretion by making the sentence imposed by the lower court too unreasonable.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3.