Part on Defendant L, M, N, andO shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

L. 6 months of imprisonment, Defendant M.

A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant M: one year and two months of imprisonment; Defendant N, andO; one year and eight months of imprisonment; two years of probation; two years of probation; community service, 160 hours; Defendant S: Imprisonment with prison labor; eight months of probation; two years of probation; two years of probation; and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) are too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (defendant H, L, and M) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants each sentence (Defendant H: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, 3 million won of fine, 3 million won of imprisonment, and 1 year and 2 months of imprisonment) is deemed unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant H, the Defendant participated in the instant crime by inducing customers as telephone counseling staff.

In the light of the method of crime and the scale of damage, etc., the crime shall not be mitigated.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected his mistake.

The Defendant took relatively passive part in the instant crime, and the number of participating crimes was limited to one time.

There is no criminal offense beyond the fine against the defendant.

In full view of the following circumstances, compared to the crimes similar to the crimes in this case and the accomplices in this case, the degree of participation in the crimes in the crimes in question, frequency of the crimes, criminal records, etc., equity of punishment taking into account the degree of participation in the crimes, criminal records, criminal records, etc., Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crimes in this case, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it is too un

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

B. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant L by the Defendant, it is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against his mistake, the frequency of the Defendant’s participation in the crime is only one time, and the Defendant has no criminal record exceeding the fine.

However, this case.