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

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance trial, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The so-called “Sscaming” crime, such as the instant case, is a crime that induces many unspecified victims in a systematic and planned manner by sharing the roles of a large number of people, and has serious harm to the victims and society, and it is difficult to arrest the entire organization in the form of the crime. As such, even if there is an assistant participating in the crime, it is highly necessary to strictly punish him/her and prevent recurrence, and the Defendant has a great need to strictly punish him/her, and the Defendant has performed an essential role in the completion of the and the realization of profits from the criminal act, and thus, is not easy to the extent of his/her participation in the crime, and is not recovered from the victim or damage.

However, the fact that the defendant is the first offender, the confession and reflects his criminal act, and the fact that the profit acquired by the crime of this case is not significant is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, background leading up to the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other factors for the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the trial process, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to be too weak or too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.