A. The defendants' punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s respective arguments on sentencing.

Defendant

B is an initial crime, and there is no particular criminal punishment except for the first offense of a fine, and all the Defendants recognize and reflect the instant crime, the damage recovery was conducted, and the injured person does not want to be punished by the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a so-called " Bosing," which is composed of systematic and systematic intelligence methods, and its nature is very poor, and it is necessary to strictly punish the crime in that it causes adverse effects on society as a whole by massing many and unspecified victims.

The role of the Defendants is to receive access media to use for the crime of fraud and deliver it to the account books for withdrawal of cash, and the degree of participation in the crime is minor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, and it does not seem unfair because it is too excessive or too heavy.

Therefore, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s above assertion are without merit.

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