A. The sentence of the lower court (No. 4 years of imprisonment, and No. 3 through No. 11 of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

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

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

It is a reason to consider that the crime is recognized and actually divided.

However, each of the crimes of this case was committed under the prior plan against many unspecified victims, and the crime of this case was committed under the victim's prior plan, not only in the process but also in bad quality using a cell phone in the process, but also in the process of using the phishing site, and acquired damage amount exceeding KRW 150 million due to the crime of this case, but most of the damage was not recovered.

However, in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined a punishment in consideration of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in circumstances that make a different determination of a punishment in the first instance court.

In this context, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, background, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment to be excessively heavy or unreasonable.

The defendant and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is complete.