A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. As in the instant case, the so-called “Sishing” crime against a large number of unspecified persons, as in the instant case, is a crime of deceiving a large number of victims in a systematic and planned manner, and deceiving them with poor conditions, which is highly intelligent and has increased social harm, and thus, the crime is highly serious. The Defendant was aware that his act constitutes the act of withdrawing profits from the instant crime since he had already participated in the instant crime. The Defendant, upon the commencement of the investigation into the accomplices, was living for a long time after her escape. However, the Defendant took charge of the role of withdrawing the money acquired by the accomplice after the completion of the investigation into the accomplice’s deception, is relatively easy to take part in the instant crime compared to other accomplices. The damage caused by the instant crime is deemed to have been recovered from considerable parts by C, etc., and the Defendant’s favorable circumstances, such as age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s criminal act, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s criminal act, etc., and all of the unfair sentencing conditions after the Defendant’s escape.

Therefore, both prosecutor and defendant's assertion are without merit.

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