A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The so-called Bosing crime, such as the instant case, is a crime that induces many and unspecified victims in a systematic and professional manner by sharing roles, and is highly harmful to the victims and society. The Defendant’s participation in the crime constitutes the act of withdrawing and delivering money obtained by deceit, which is essential for the crime of Bosing, and the degree of participation is not somewhat weak in light of the number of accessible media taken over by the Defendant, the period and frequency of the crime, etc.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case and reflects his mistake, that is the first offender, and that the court below agreed with three of five victims of fraud in the court below, and agreed with the additional one in the trial, and the remaining one victim received an agreement and a written application from his mother in a foreign country is favorable to the defendant.

In full view of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the above circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, the process and consequence of the instant crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be too heavy, too heavy, or unreasonable since it is too low. Therefore, each of the unfair sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the Prosecutor are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.