2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant by taking part in the organization of the crime of Bosing and directly collecting the amount of damage from the victim, thereby facilitating the commission of the crime of this organization, and the nature of the crime is poor in light of the method of the commission of the crime, etc., and the crime of Bosing is hard to crack down because the crime of Bosing is very secret and organized, and it is highly harmful to the society because it is not easy to recover the damage.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; (b) the Defendant reflects his mistake; (c) the Defendant was directly involved in the instant crime as a means to collect the damage amount; (d) the defrauded was not more than the same type of crime; (b) the Defendant was aware of the substance and the appearance of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant does not seem to have committed the crime under a conclusive recognition of the substance and the appearance of the Bosinging crime; (d) the Defendant was fully recovered; (e) the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual consent with the victim; (e) the Defendant did not have any record of punishment in Korea; and (e) the Defendant’s age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive and background, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the sentencing of the similar case, such as the circumstances after the crime, is identical with

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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