A. In light of the fact that a defense counsel (unfairness) commits an error against the Defendant, and only the withdrawal of the so-called “Singing” organization, and the victim H did not want the Defendant’s punishment, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the Defendant to one year’s imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that each of the instant crimes committed by the prosecutor (unfairness) constitutes organized crimes in Bophishing cases with a major social problem, and that the Defendant’s act of cash withdrawal is indispensable to achieve the purpose of the financial fraud crime, and the degree of participation is not somewhat weak, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The so-called telephone financial fraud crime is a planned, systematic intelligence, and short-term massing of unspecified number of victims, and the defendant's sharing act is an essential role in the completion of the Bophishing crime, and the degree of participation cannot be deemed to be negligible, and the victim H expressed an intention that the defendant does not want to punish the defendant is already reflected in the court below. Meanwhile, the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, there is no past record of criminal punishment in Korea, the defendant took part in the crime in a relatively simple form, and the defendant took part in the crime in a relatively simple form. Considering the motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, the situation before and after the crime of this case, degree of damage, and other various factors specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's character and behavior and environment, it shall not be determined that the punishment imposed by the court below is reasonable, and it shall not be deemed that the defendant's excessive excessive, excessive, excessive, or excessive.

Therefore, the above ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, and all of them are in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.