The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 6 shall be confiscated.

The Prosecutor asserts that, on the grounds of the instant appeal, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

However, it is recognized that the defendant was the first offender in Korea, and each of the crimes of this case, which was prosecuted, was committed for a period of one day, and that the direct profits of the defendant were not achieved due to the crime.

However, this case is a case where the defendant tried to withdraw the amount of damage using a means of access used in the so-called Bosing crime. Even if the period of participation is shorter and the number of times of fraud are not many, the degree of the defendant's participation as a whole as a withdrawal of the entire Bosing organization cannot be deemed minor.

The circumstances where it is difficult to arrest the entire organization or to recover the amount of fraud due to the nature of the Bosing crime committed in the form of the occupied organization, the adverse effect of the Bosing crime on the whole society should also be considered.

In addition, there is no recovery from damage up to the trial.

As in the instant case, the phrase “institutional fraud (the amount less than 100 million won)” that committed a systematic and professional crime by sharing roles among multiple persons in advance is set forth in the sentencing guidelines as the basic area of imprisonment with prison labor for a minimum of one year and six months, and is set at a minimum of one year and six years, and may be deemed as having increased the penalty as a case involving an unspecified or large number of victims. In this case, there are cases where multiple crimes of the same kind and different types of crimes (violation of Electronic Financial Transaction Act) in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, there is no special reason to sentence a sentence lower than the said basic area.

In full view of all other circumstances that serve as the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, such as the motive for the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the age, character and conduct, home environment, etc. of the Defendant, the sentence of the lower court is too uneasy.