A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first deliberation regarding sentencing in light of the fact that there exists an area unique to sentencing determination, and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, etc., if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). (b) Telecommunications fraud, such as the instant crime, (e.g., telephone financing), is organized and specialized, by sharing the roles of multiple persons according to a consistent plan, is performed in a systematic and specialized manner, and the subject of the instant crime is mainly intended to obtain a small amount of loans from ordinary citizens, and is likely to adversely affect the trust relationship of society as a whole by making the general public’s national agencies, financial institutions, etc. physically and thus, such crime is not very good

The Defendant, while playing a role in withdrawing and remitting books, made an essential contribution to the crime.

Although the organization to which the defendant was the defendant was deceiving a number of victims by deceiving them, it has not been agreed with the victims or has not been recovered from the damage.

In addition, the crime of lending media access to one electronic financial transaction is likely to disturb the financial order as well as facilitate other crimes. In fact, the access media leased by the defendant was used for the crime of fraud, and the nature of the crime is heavy.

In light of these circumstances, it is necessary to strictly punish the accused.

However, the above circumstances were already taken place in the hearing process of the court below, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the court below was sentenced, and the defendant erred.