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

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

2. Circumstances favorable to the defendant are as follows.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime and runs against the Defendant.

The defendant has no record of punishment except for two different types of criminal records and fines.

The crime of this case was committed once, and the profits earned by the defendant seems to be part of the amount of damage.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

The crime of this case was committed in a systematic and professional manner by sharing the roles of multiple persons according to a thorough plan, and acquired money from an unspecified number of victims by misrepresenting public authority.

The so-called phishing crime is likely to adversely affect the trust relationship of the whole society by making the general public imprucly with state agencies or financial institutions.

The Defendant, while playing a role in delivery books, contributed essentially to the criminal conduct of licensing.

The defendant did not take any measures for the recovery of damage up to the trial.

In addition to the above circumstances, taking into account the Defendant’s age, sex, career, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be said that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or too unreasonable.

The defendant and the prosecutor's assertion are without merit.

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