Judgment

Since the so-called “scaming” crime in which the Defendant participated is highly harmful to the society by massing a large number of victims as a planned and organized act against many unspecified persons, it is necessary to strictly punish a person who participated in the crime.

However, the Defendant is the primary offender, and all of the instant crimes are recognized, and social ties are recognized, such as the fact that the Defendant was committed against the victim of fraud, the fact that the victim of fraud agreed with the victim, and the Defendant’s family members want to have the front wife, and the lower court determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances. In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, health condition, family relationship, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem the lower court’s punishment to be unfair because it is too unfeasible to the extent of discretion.

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