A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation, collection 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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). Based on the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and the recognition of his mistake; (b) the first offender who has no criminal punishment power; and (c) the actual gains from the instant crime are not significant; (d) the crime, such as the instant crime, consists of multiple and unspecified persons in a planned and organized manner; (b) the crime of Bophish was committed against a large number of victims; and (c) at the same time, it may cause serious economic losses to the large number of victims; (d) the degree of the Defendant’s participation, which was the first act deceiving victims in the instant crime, was significant; (e) the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime, which was the first act deceiving victims; and (e) the fact that the Defendant continued to participate in the instant crime by voluntarily returning home and voluntarily leaving China.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or too unfasible, and it does not seem that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant and prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, each appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.