The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

, however, the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of 8 months for each of the defendants A, B, C, and E and the imprisonment of 6 months for each of the defendants D) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In determining Defendant A, C, D, and E’s assertion, Defendant A, C, D, and E are the time of the instant crime; in the case of Defendant A, the instant crime is the first head of the crime at the time of the original adjudication that became final and conclusive and the latter concurrent crimes under Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, with regard to the relationship between fraud of the first head of the crime at the time of the original adjudication and the latter concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentencing conditions favorable to Defendant A, C, D, and E are recognized

However, on the other hand, the crime of this case is an intelligent fraud through the so-called "Sishing," which receives money from the victim by telephoneing to many and unspecified persons in Korea, and takes money from the victim, and the nature of the crime is very poor and the damage is spreading significantly, and thus, it is highly necessary to punish the persons who participated in the crime. Defendant A, C, D, and E, due to the fraud of the aforementioned veterinary act, was punished by a fine of KRW 10 million on April 18, 2013 in imprisonment of two years, community service, 160 hours, and 160 million on August 22, 2013, and Defendant C was punished by a suspended sentence of three years on April 18, 2013; Defendant C was punished by a fine of KRW 5 million on April 9, 2013; Defendant E was punished by a fine of KRW 70 million on April 9, 2013; and Defendant E was punished on April 28, 2012.

3. Until July, 300, the Defendant again committed the instant crime, did not recover damage to the victims, and Defendant A played an intermediary manager’s role by dividing the amount of damage of this case, Defendant A, C, D, and E’s roles and degree of participation, as well as the age, character and conduct and environment of the said Defendants, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., as well as various sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which were shown in the argument of the instant case, are favorable.