The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in its summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court: (a) based on the fact that: (b) the crime of singishing is highly harmful to an unspecified number of victims in a planned and organized manner; and (c) it is essential to realize profits through a crime, taking into account the fact that the lowest participants take part in the crime for economic reasons that they obtain high-income; and (d) continue the crime for the purpose of arresting the victims without any particular criminal liability as a result of systematic division; (b) the Defendant was suffering from severe punishment; and (c) on November 28, 2019, the Defendant was aware that he/she continued the crime until December 5, 2019, while recognizing that he/she was singishing, taking into account the fact that it was difficult for them to obtain high-income profits; and (d) he/she took part in the crime of singishing and receiving the Defendant’s profits more favorable to the victims by taking into account the fact that he/she took part in the crime of singishing and receiving the Defendant’s profits from a financial institution.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and other factors revealed in the proceedings of the present case, including balance with the same kind of crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.