2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The instant crime aiding and abetting the act of fraud of a person without a name, by providing a deposit account in the name of the Defendant to a person with no name, and withdrawing the money deposited in the account.

It is recognized that the crime of Bosing fraud is highly harmful to the society, so it is necessary to strictly punish the aiding and abetting the crime, the defendant's failure to recover the damage or to receive the volume from the victim, and the amount of damage is 30 million won or more.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant commits a single aiding and abetting the Defendant, not a principal offender, and the Defendant does not seem to have been involved in the instant crime on a conclusive basis; (b) the Defendant appears to have no profit actually acquired; (c) the Defendant’s criminal punishment of a single fine due to drunk driving in around 2001 is the entire amount; and (d) the Defendant’s age, family relationship, motive for the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the commission of the instant pleadings, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or to be unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, 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.