2. The defendant assisted the crime of telephone financing fraud by delivering the money acquired by the telephone financial fraud organization in the form of a victim or a liability for delivery and remitting the money. Considering the fact that the number of crimes reaches seven times and the victims' damages reach a considerable amount, and that a strict punishment is needed for the participants in the telephone financial fraud, it is necessary to punish the defendant.

Meanwhile, considering the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have aided and abettedly phishing crimes, which are not conclusive intention but dolusent intentional negligence; (b) the Defendant did not have any profit accrued from the instant crime; (c) the Defendant was diagnosed as a mental disorder Grade 2 with mental disorder 2; (d) currently being treated until now; (c) the Defendant was detained for three months; (d) the Defendant has no history of criminal punishment; and (e) the Defendant has not been punished; and (e) is in profoundly against his/her mistake; and (e) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and circumstances leading to the commission of the instant crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unjustifiable and unreasonable

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.