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, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). New circumstances or special changes in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment do not appear.

This case is due to the participation in the so-called Bophishing crime and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant has been convicted of having been sentenced to suspended sentence due to an attempted fraud in 2011, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case with willful negligence, not with conclusive intention, is the degree of participation, the degree of participation is about aiding and abetting, and the fact that the defendant is against the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relations, etc. as well as various conditions of sentencing indicated in the pleadings and records, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed as being excessively unjustifiable.

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