A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (ten months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, the fact that the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant, the first offender, and the fact that the Defendant’s family members or majority of the surrounding people want the Defendant’s prior action against the Defendant, etc., the fact that the social relation is maintained is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the part of the defendant's participation in the scam crime is planned and organized against many unspecified persons, and the nature of the crime is very good. The scam fraud crime is divided not only into a total liability but also through the participation of subordinate officers such as the solicitation of passbook, cash withdrawal, etc. In order to eradicate it, it is necessary to severely punish the partial participating actors. The defendant stored 11 physical cards for the scam crime and withdrawn money using the above scam card.

In addition to the above circumstances, in full view of various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below is too minor.

It is not likely that it is improper or too unreasonable.

The prosecutor and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

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