The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.

evidence of seizure.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and eight months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with Defendant A’s first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant

A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

B. The so-called “singing” fraud, which is planned and organized against many unspecified persons and leads to a large number of victims, is not very good to commit the crime, and the social harm is also serious.

These crimes are carried out in a variety of ways through the participation of subordinate officers such as withdrawals, remittances, solicitations, and deliverys as well as the total amount of liability, and it is also necessary to severely punish such participations.

However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant is the primary offender; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime; (c) the Defendant deposited the full amount of damage (11.7 million won) in the trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment seems to be somewhat unreasonable.

Defendant

B’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is justified.

3. In conclusion, Defendant A’s appeal is without merit and Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.