A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too too unreasonable.

2. The so-called “singishing” crime, in which the Defendant participated, is highly harmful to an unspecified number of victims by systematically and systematically engaging in the crime against many unspecified persons, and by massing a large number of victims, and thus, there is a need to strictly punish a person who participated in the crime.

However, it is reasonable to respect the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health conditions, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed as having actively participated in the instant crime, and the Defendant has no record of the same kind of crime at the lower court. The lower court, compared to the first instance court, determined the sentence in consideration of the above circumstances, where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all the circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

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