2. The instant crime was committed by aiding and abetting the Defendant to commit the so-called phishing crime as a liability for cash collection, and taking into account the social harm of the phishing crime, and the fact that the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime was completed as a result of the Defendant’s commission of the crime, the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not less than that of the phishing crime.

On the other hand, however, the defendant's participation in the crime of this case is harsh in the letter "Recruitment of part-time", and there are some circumstances to consider the process of the crime of this case, and the period, frequency, etc. of the crime of this case are neither or many, nor seems to be a serious reflection on the defendant's crime of this case.

All victims agreed with the defendant, and there is no additional criminal record in addition to the criminal record of a fine for the past offense.

Considering the above conditions unfavorable to or favorable to the defendant, and the age, sex, environment, and all other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, it does not seem unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit (in addition, the court below's appeal is without merit, and it is not recognized that the result of confiscation of additional seized articles is not necessary). 3. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.