2. The crime of this case in a systematic and systematic manner is a crime that takes part in telephone finance fraud that causes damage to many unspecified victims, and takes charge of cash collection and delivery, and it is not good that the Defendants should be punished strictly because of its high possibility of social criticism.

Despite the fact that the Defendants participated and acquired money, they did not agree with the victims, but did not recover any particular damage.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, the defendants recognize all crimes and repent in depth.

Defendant

A is an initial crime, and Defendant B is punished once by a fine of different kind.

Such circumstances are favorable to the Defendants.

As above, the lower court seems to have sentenced the Defendants to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, taking into account all favorable circumstances in favor of the Defendants.

When comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing, the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion, and the sentencing criteria, etc. in the court below’s sentencing.

There is no circumstance that it is deemed unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is or that the judgment of the court below is unfair.

In addition, even if the defendants' age, career, sex, environment, family relationship, social ties, motive and background of the crime, size of profit gained from the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered, the sentence of the court below shall be appropriate, and it shall not be deemed unfair because it is too uneasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.