The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the court below (one hundred 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 the Defendant’s mistake in depth, the fact that the victimized person wants to leave the Defendant’s wife by agreement with the victim at the court below, and that the Defendant was the first offender who had no criminal record prior to the instant crime, etc., is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the sentencing of the court below seems to have been achieved by fully considering these favorable circumstances, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that can be newly considered in the sentencing in the appellate court.

In particular, the so-called Boishing crime, which is systematically and systematically planned for many unspecified victims, is not very good that it impairs the safety and order of trading and public credibility.

These Bophishing crimes are often carried out not only by the total liability but also by the participation of subordinate officers such as withdrawal books, money exchange books, remittance books, solicitation books of passbook, card delivery books, etc.

As such, it is not possible to commit a crime without the participation of the subordinate employees above, it is necessary to strictly punish such an act of participation.

In light of the following: (a) the degree of Defendant’s participation in dialogue between the Defendant and the upper class staff or the circumstances in which the Defendant had been keeping a number of access media, etc., the degree of such participation

It is not visible.

In full view of these circumstances, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and all of the conditions of the sentencing indicated in the instant records and the previous theories, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be unfair due to excessive disregard.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.