A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We also examine each of the judgment and prosecutor’s unfair sentencing cases.

The so-called “Sishing” crime, such as the instant crime, is not only organized, planned, and intelligent against many unspecified victims, but also needs to severely punish subordinate participants who have performed the role of withdrawal, delivery, and delivery, due to the serious social and economic harm. The Defendant actively participated in the instant crime, such as taking over several access media or taking the role of withdrawal, taking the role of delivery, and receiving fees, are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all of his criminal acts, the suspension of indictment for this kind of crime, and the records of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea are not confirmed, and the fact that the victims agreed with the victims are favorable to the defendant.

As above, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of various favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendant, and there is no special change to the extent that it is considered in sentencing in the past.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view the sentencing of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable since it is difficult to view the sentencing of the court below as unfair. Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant

3. In conclusion, since each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in entirety in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.