The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected in the judgment of the lower court.

The Defendant took part in the crime of this case as “measures for delivery of cash,” and the degree of participation is relatively weak.

The defendant is the first offender who has no previous criminal record.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

However, the so-called “scaming” crime, such as the instant crime, consists of organized, planned, and intelligent crimes, and social harm is very high, and even if participation is limited to a part of the crime because it is difficult to arrest the entire organization, it is necessary to severely punish the crime.

The amount of defraudation caused by the instant crime is KRW 11,200,000,00,000,000.

The victims did not recover from damage properly.

There is no change in circumstances that can reduce the punishment of the court below in the trial.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

With respect to each of the above circumstances and each of the sentencing guidelines established by the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court, it constitutes a basic area among the types 2 (at least KRW 100 million, but less than KRW 500 million). Since the type of each of the criminal offenses is increased in one step as a result of the combination of concurrent offenses, one year and 4 months to 5 years (in cases of a special aggravated person: a person subject to a large number of unspecified victims or multiple victims or committing repeated offenses over a considerable period, a special mitigated person: a person subject to special mitigation: a simple participation): Provided, That the sentencing guidelines is not set for the attempted offenses, and each of the above criminal offenses against which the sentencing guidelines set out and the attempted fraud for which the sentencing guidelines have not been set are not set has a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower limit of the sentencing guidelines set by the sentencing guidelines for

The sentencing conditions set forth in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, environment, sex, motive of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime.