A. The defendants' punishment (six months of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The so-called “Singishing” crime, like the instant case, was committed in a systematic and planned manner against many unspecified victims, causing serious damage to the majority of victims, and thus there is a need to strictly punish the Defendants since it is highly harmful in society. Furthermore, the Defendants do not seem to be less vulnerable to the degree of participation in the instant “Singishing” crime by taking into account the following: (a) as a member of the team at the scene of the organization of Bosing “Singing” (participation in withdrawal and delivery of damage amount) and (b) as a member of the team at the scene of the organization of “Sing,” the role of “sing” (on the part of the owner who wants to borrow the loan, and the said “sing”), and taking into account the fact that the Defendants did not agree with the victim.

However, the Defendants’ mistake is divided, and the Defendants’ offense of this case is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of fraud (as in this case, referred to as “phishing”) and the crime of this case in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the case of equity should be taken into account when the judgment is rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. In addition to the crime of fraud as in the above judgment against the Defendants, there is no particular criminal history, and the Defendants’ age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, are determined appropriate, and the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy and unreasonable. Accordingly, the Defendants’ and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. As such, the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.