The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than nine months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the crime of this case is committed repeatedly for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and the legal benefits from the damage are the same as that of the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, and the court below should consider it as a substantive concurrent crime and aggravated concurrent crimes. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of fraud, in a case where a person acquired each property by deception against several victims by each victim, even if the criminal intent is single and the method of crime is the same, it shall be deemed that the crime is not a single comprehensive crime, but a single crime is established for each victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do508, Jun. 27, 1997). The same applies to aiding and abetting crimes.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the victim of the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case is three (B, J, and M). Thus, the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case constitutes one of the crimes of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case by each victim, and all of the crimes of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case cannot be deemed as a comprehensive crime

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Considering the fact that the social harm caused by the so-called “phishing” crime is very serious in determining the allegation of unfair sentencing, it is recognized that there is a need to strictly punish the act of aiding and abetting the “phishing” crime like the instant crime, such as the instant crime, and that the defraudation amount amounts to a total of 77 million won, and that the payment of damage was not made properly, and that there was no agreement with J and M among the victims.

However, the defendant has led to the confession of all crimes and divided his mistake, the primary offender, and the victim B shall be paid KRW 15 million.