All appeals filed by A, B, D, F and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of two and half years, confiscation and confiscation; imprisonment of two and half years and six months; Defendant C; imprisonment of two years and one hundred and twenty hours of probation and community service order in October; Defendant D: imprisonment of two years and six months: imprisonment of two years and six months; imprisonment of two years and twenty hours of probation and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order in October; Defendant F: imprisonment of two years and one year and two months of one year and two) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court against the above Defendants A, B, D, and F is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A (two years and six months of imprisonment), the circumstances such as Defendant A’s acknowledgement of all the instant crimes and reflects his mistake, Defendant A’s primary crime, Defendant A’s agreement with the victim CD, Defendant A did not want the punishment of Defendant A at the lower court, and part of the criminal act committed by fraud did not realize the damage by failure to withdraw, and Defendant A’s accomplice agreed to or deposited with some victims at the lower court.

However, Defendant A’s crime of this case is committed by acquiring approximately KRW 117 million in total from 18 victims in collusion with Defendant B, etc., and taking over 13 electronic financial transactions access media from 18 victims, in light of the method of crime, the scale of damage, and the degree of participation, and Defendant A’s participation in the crime of Bohishing, which is a method of crime committed by Defendant A’s participation, may be deemed to be disadvantageous to the general public, such as the fact that the method of crime was organized, planned, planned, and intelligent damage to many and unspecified persons, and that the overall trust relationship would have a serious adverse effect on society.

In the above circumstances, there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in the trial after the pronouncement of the original judgment, and the age, environment, family relationship of Defendant A, and the circumstances leading to the instant crime and crimes.