2. The Defendant was involved in the so-called phishing crime committed according to the so-called phishing plan, which is highly harmful to society, and the organization to which the Defendant belongs, committed the crime abroad, such as China, etc. to avoid the death of the Republic of Korea, is very poor.

Furthermore, considering the fact that the victims have not been recovered from damage, the sentence of the court below seems to be somewhat simple.

However, in addition to the aforementioned circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, the lower court appears to have determined a sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the actual amount of damage incurred by the Defendant’s direct action does not appear to be a very large amount; (b) the damage caused by the Defendant’s direct action is less than that of the damage; (c) the Defendant’s damage was committed by the Defendant is against his or her own name and was born to his or her old age in a relatively poor environment; and (d) there was no criminal punishment except once a fine due to the crime of this kind in the past; and (e) there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court; and (e) it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event the first instance court did not change the conditions of sentencing and did not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.