Judgment

The crime of this case is an organized and planned intelligent fraud that causes considerable damage to an unspecified number of victims under the so-called “Singishing” method, and thus, requires strict punishment. Although the amount of damage is small, it does not reach an agreement with the victims or did not repay the damage. Defendant A and B played a role in the management of the Singishing organization in China. Defendant C takes the role of managing the withdrawal of the damage, and took the part in contact with the victims in Korea. Defendant C takes the role in managing the withdrawal of the damage, and Defendant D took the role in managing the singishing organization. Defendant D has a significant degree of participation, and Defendant D has a history of having been punished for the same kind of crime, which is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants recognized the crime of this case, Defendant A, B, and C did not have the history of punishment for the same crime, and should consider equity with the case of judgment at the same time with the final judgment of fraud, etc., Defendant D, upon the request of Defendant C, played a role in monitoring the nominal owner of the passbook used for the criminal act of licensing, and the degree of participation is relatively less strict (the trial record No. 175 pages), and Defendant C did not obtain criminal proceeds by failure to withdraw, and Defendant C did not obtain criminal proceeds by failure to withdraw, and Defendant C discontinued the organization and contact of the Bosing (the trial record No. 181 page) was favorable to the Defendants.

In addition, in full view of the various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, sex, family relationship, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is acceptable on the grounds that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.