Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with labor for one year and ten months and by a fine of thirty million won.

A. The determination of the Defendants’ punishment (in the form of imprisonment with prison labor for two years and fines for three hundred thousand won, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is unreasonable.

B. The determination of the sentence against the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to determine the sentencing of Defendant A is within the applicable sentencing range and the recommended sentencing range (one year or more of imprisonment) according to the attached sentencing guidelines.

The punishment was imposed by taking into account the details of the crime, the liability for the crime, the Bosing victims, some of the fraud victims, and the agreement.

However, the appellate court agreed with the victims of fraud 2020 Go-Ma1306.

In addition, if we review the sentencing factors, the amount of the original sentence is somewhat inappropriate.

B. The lower court decided on the sentencing of Defendant B, within the scope of recommended sentences (one to three years of imprisonment) according to the sentencing guidelines set out in the annexed sentencing guidelines.

Defendant

In consideration of B’s reflection, agreement with the victim of Bosing, etc., the punishment was imposed in consideration of the contents of the crime and the liability for the crime.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying the elements of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

The determination of the original judgment cannot be respected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing set out in the sentencing guidelines in this court, the determination of the original sentence cannot be deemed unreasonable either because the amount of the sentence exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion, even if the court re-examines the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing

3. Conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is justified.

Pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A shall be reversed and it shall be judged again after pleadings.

The judgment below

The appeal by the defendant B and the prosecutor against the defendant B is without merit.

All of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by this court shall be determined by the judgment of the court.