2. We also examine the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s respective sentencing offenses.

The Defendants did not know the overall plan or structure of the instant crime, but did not follow the direction of the principal offender, and all the instant crimes were dead and reflected. The Defendants’ interest derived from the instant crime was smaller than the actual amount of damage.

may be seen.

In addition, Defendant A and B wanted that they do not want to be punished by Defendant A and B by concluding an agreement with a considerable number of victims, and also endeavored to recover damage by depositing the amount of damage to some victims.

In particular, prior to the instant crime, Defendant B actively informed an investigative agency of a crime or provided the proviso to an investigation, and cooperates with an investigative agency by providing information, such as informing an investigative agency to arrest other accomplices even after participating in the instant crime, and provided information for arresting accomplicess or discovering their whereabouts even after the arrest of the instant criminal act. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the provision of information for arresting accomplicess or discovering their whereabouts, and the punishment that would have been sentenced should also be taken into account in a concurrent crime relationship between the previous offense and the latter after Article 37 of the Criminal Act

However, given the characteristics of the instant crime, which constitutes the so-called “Ssinging” crime, it causes serious harm not only to the victims but also to our society as a whole, and it is a crime causing damage to an unspecified number of victims, which is virtually difficult to recover in a planned and organized manner, and its nature is very high.