The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence of the lower court is too uncomfortable and unfair.

Judgment

The sentence of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the contents of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is determined within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances and the appellate court’s ex post facto and aesthetic nature, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (i) the Defendant is recognized as substitute for the instant crime; (ii) there is no criminal punishment exceeding a fine; and (iii) the Defendant has committed the instant crime in favor of the Defendant; (iv) the instant crime is planned and organized against many unspecified persons; and (iv) the instant crime is so-called “scambishing” fraud that takes place with multiple victims; and (v) the social harm therefrom is very serious; and (v) the need for the Defendant to take part in the instant crime, such as telephone finance investigators, such as “scaming”, as well as the total liability for fraud; and (v) the Defendant’s participation in the prosecution’s collection and delivery of remittance; and its strict liability.