A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The following facts are considered to be unfair: (a) the general responsibility for operating and managing the Bosing Office; (b) the victims to transfer or withdraw money by misrepresenting the investigative agency or financial institution, etc. by telephone; (c) the measures for withdrawing or collecting money remitted from the victims; and (d) the crime is planned and organized by making many and unspecified persons commit the crime; (c) the crime is not good; (d) the social harm caused by the crime of Bosing fraud is serious; and (e) there is a great need to strictly punish the participants; and (e) the Defendant was aware of the fact that he/she participated in the crime of Bosing fraud, thereby taking charge of collecting money distributed to him/her, thereby causing considerable damage to the victims.

It is more favorable that the defendant recognized all of the crimes when he was in the trial, agreed with the victim I, deposited five million won in the court below to the victim B, three million won in the court below to deposit in the court below to the victim B, and the victim B did not want to be punished. The defendant's age is the first offender with the age of the defendant and without any criminal record, depression, yellow disorder, etc., and the health condition is not good.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the character, character and environment, family relationship, and means and result of the crime, the sentence of the court below is deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument disputing unfair sentencing is without merit, and the defendant's argument is with merit.

An appeal by a public prosecutor shall be groundless, but by a defendant.