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 Decided July 23, 2015). While recognizing the fact that the call center leader of the Bosing Organization engaged in an illegal act, the Defendants participated in the commission of the crime for a considerable period of time, the Defendants cannot be deemed to be deemed to have poor the quality of the crime in light of the background of the crime and the content of the crime, and to have less liability.

However, the defendants reflect their mistakes.

Defendant

A is an initial offender, and Defendant B has no record of exceeding a fine.

The Defendants are counselors at the first call center, who are relatively minor in the degree of participation, voluntarily surrenders to the investigation, and the equity between the sentence and the sentence of other accomplices who have already become final and conclusive.

The above circumstances appear to have already been reflected in the sentencing of the lower court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In addition, taking into account the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive for crime, method of crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against the Defendants cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unhued.

3. The prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.