The fact that the defendant is against the defendant, that the defendant is against the victim's K, U, Q, P, R, and T, that the defendant has agreed with the victim's K, U, Q, P, R, and that the defendant has only been punished one time by a fine, etc.

On the other hand, the crime of Bosing, such as the instant case, is planned and organized for many unspecified persons, thereby causing serious damage to the victims, and the social harm and severe punishment are needed. The Defendant, who is in charge of telephone counselor in the instant crime, directly commits a deceitful act against the victims by taking charge of the role of telephone counselor, and the degree of participation in the instant crime is not easy, and the period of the instant crime exceeds one month, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, career, character and conduct, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments and records, the sentence of the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it is deemed that it is too heavy or too unreasonable. Therefore, each of the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.