A. In light of the fact that the defense counsel reflects the mistake of the defendant, there is no record of punishment for the same kind of crime or of punishment exceeding the fine, and the five victims expressed their intent not to want the punishment of the defendant, the sentence of the court below that sentenced the imprisonment of one year and two months is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case by the prosecutor is the so-called “Sishing,” and there is a need to eradicate the crime through severe punishment because the crime of this case was committed systematically and systematically against many unspecified victims, and the amount of damage is considerable, and there is a significant social harm, etc., it is unfair that the sentence of the court below is too uneasible.

2. The judgment of the court below recognized the defendant's mistake and reflects the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment except a fine of 700,000 won due to the crime of bodily injury in 2007, five victims expressed their intent that the defendant does not want punishment. Meanwhile, the crime of this case is organized and planned as a crime of telephone financial fraud, and thus, it is not good that the crime of this case is committed in a systematic and planned manner, and it is highly harmful to society because it can lead to an unspecified number of victims in a short period of time, and the recovery of damage is not proper, and all the conditions of sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, degree of damage, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered reasonable, and it is not determined that the punishment of the court below is too heavy, or that it is unfair because it is too excessive. Therefore, all of the above arguments are without merit.

3. Conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are 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.