The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. No applicant for the scope of adjudication of this court shall file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation order;

(Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). The court of first instance rejected all applications for compensation by each applicant for compensation, and with respect to this part, the applicant for compensation was unable to appeal, and the decision was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be excluded from the scope of this court.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(a) The sentence of the first instance judgment (four years of imprisonment) against the accused in the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

B. 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 is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015도3260 전원합의체 판결 참조). 위 법리에 비추어 살피건대, 판시 각 범행은 불특정 다수를 상대로 조직적으로 이루어지는 ‘보이스피싱’ 사기 관련 범행으로 기본적으로 그 죄질이 몹시 나쁠 뿐만 아니라, 공문서위조 및 행사를 수단으로 하는 등 그 비난가능성이 매우 크다.

In addition, the number of crimes is very large, and the amount of damage is so excessive that the amount of damage is at least one billion won.

As such, considering the major circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, the sentence of the first instance judgment is rather somewhat weak.

Furthermore, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant appear to be reflected in the judgment of the first instance court, and it cannot be deemed that fundamental changes have occurred in sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court. Moreover, even if the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc. are repeatedly considered, the sentencing of the court of the first instance is too excessive and goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.