2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, in light of the social problems of the Bophishing crime, the type of the Defendant’s participation, and the intent of punishing the victims, etc., the Defendant’s criminal liability is not provided against other accomplices, but the period of participation is shorter and the amount of damage is less and less than the amount of damage is less and less than the amount of other accomplices, and secedes from the Bophishing organization. In particular, the Defendant left Korea at a similar time as the Defendant and operated by B, taking into account the balance of punishment with those who play a similar role in the Chinese Cheongishing organization.

According to the documents submitted in the trial at the trial court, it appears that the defendant supports his/her family as a worker and is living as a normal social person. In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and circumstances of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it may be deemed that the sentence of the court below is somewhat weak, but it is not recognized that it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion,

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.