A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and two months, a long term of one year and four months, confiscation / Defendant B: imprisonment for a short term of eight months, a long term of ten months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the legal principles and the fact that the Defendants had a clear perception of the existence of other accomplices within the Bosing Organization, the Defendants shared the criminal law with each other, and shared their roles as an organic organization with accomplices, so long as the conspiracy relationship between each Defendant and Bosing employees is acknowledged, the Defendants shall be held liable as co-principal for such act. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendants to recognize a conspiracy relationship with regard to the crime of co-defendants who did not directly face the victim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (ii) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (iii) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (iv) In so doing, it is unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (Defendant A’s imprisonment for a short term of one year and two years, a long term of one year and four months, a confiscation, a short term of

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles, the staff of the 1st sentence of this part of the facts charged, namely, misrepresenting the public prosecutor’s office or prosecutor’s office, investigators, etc., and making phone calls to many unspecified domestic victims, i.e., “wishing” in the name of another person to be used for the crime, i.e., making cash withdrawal of the money transferred from the victims, i., “passing” in cash withdrawal, i.e., “passing” in the designated place, i., finding the victims of the money by finding the money directly from the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendants are guilty of Bophishing.