A. The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s arguments.

All of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and the defendant is limited to the role of cash withdrawal, and is not led by the whole of the crimes of this case. The defendant was partially distributed the proceeds of the crime of this case, the defendant paid 5 million won to the victim P, 220,000 won to the victim R, 220,000 won to the victim S, 710,000 won to the victim P, and 10,000 won to the victim Q, and 200,000 won for the victim T, and most of the damage caused by the crime of this case were recovered, among victims, P, R, S, andO do not want to be punished by the defendant, there is no history of criminal punishment domestically, and the relatives of the defendant want to be punished by the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is committed by the accomplices, including the defendant, by deceiving the victims through a mobile phone, or by taking money from the victims under the pretext of a part-time job placement service or by pretending transactions via the Internet, and thus, the crime is committed systematically, planned, and intelligently, and because it is difficult to arrest all criminals, it is necessary to severely punish the accomplices who participated in only part of the crime. The victim from the crime of this case reaches seven persons in total, and in light of the amount withdrawn by the defendant in the course of the crime of this case, the defendant appears to have participated in the additional crime other than the crime of this case.

In full view of all these circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., the sentencing of the court below is the sentencing.