A. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment, 6 months of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment and the prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing.

The so-called “Sishing” fraud, such as the instant crime, consists of organized, planned, and intelligent crimes, and has a substantial social harm, and even if it is not possible to arrest all members, it is necessary to severely punish the crime even if it is part of the crime.

The number of access media kept by the Defendant knowing that the Defendant was to be used in the phishing crime has reached 19, and in fact, there was a large amount of fraud using the above access media.

This is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the law.

The Defendant did not have relatively little period of participation in the fraud crime, and agreed with most victims.

This is the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances as well as the Defendant’s age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing a crime, and circumstances before and after committing a crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate and has exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, and the lower court’s judgment on sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, as the defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable or unreasonable as the prosecutor asserts, the defendant and the prosecutor's above assertion are all without merit.

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