2. 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, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendants took part in the fraud of the Bophishing organization organized by many and unspecified persons for the purpose of committing a crime and play a role as a counselor for the call center. The nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.

The Defendants did not lead the crime.

There is a need to strictly punish even if there is no large amount of profit acquired or personally.

However, the defendants reflect their mistakes.

Defendant

A is limited to only one time fine, and Defendant B and C are first offenders.

The degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime is relatively weak.

Defendant

A and C agreed to or deposited with the victims, and Defendant B made efforts to recover from damage by mutual consent with some of the victims.

The judgment below

There is no change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing thereafter.

In full view of all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in records and pleadings, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by so doing.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.