A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, and confiscation) on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The so-called Bophishing crime, such as the instant case on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, is an offense against an unspecified or many unspecified persons, and the nature of the offense is less and less severe than that of the society. Therefore, the Defendant need to be punished by strict punishment.

However, there are favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant is the time to commit the crime of this case, that there is no criminal history against the defendant, that the defendant deposited KRW 2.7 million for the victims at the original trial, that the defendant agreed with the victim I, and that some damage was deposited for the victims, etc. In addition, all of the sentencing conditions for the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court on the crime of this case.

(a) Where a person commits a crime against an unspecified or large number of unspecified victims, or commits a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time, in the aggravated area (two years and six months to four years) of category 1 (less than KRW 100,00) (the sum of the amount of profit) in each fraud and fraud by using computers, etc.;

(b)Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act: Sentencing shall not apply.

C. The scope of the final sentencing range due to the aggravation of multiple crimes: In full view of at least two years and six months (limited to the lower limit of the sentencing range on the sentencing criteria for each of the above crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set, since the crimes of fraud, computer use fraud, etc., for which the sentencing criteria are set are set and the crimes of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act for which no sentencing guidelines are set are set, the lower limit of the sentencing range is set), it is not recognized that the sentencing of the lower court is too

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is justified.