All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, two and half years of imprisonment, and for defendant C, one and half years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants appear to recognize and reflect crimes, and there are no actual benefits compared to the amount of damage.

Defendant

A does not have any record of crime except for punishment by a fine for a double-class crime. Defendant C needs to consider equity with the case where each of the crimes in this case constitutes a final crime of fraud and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the crimes of Bosing are crimes of acquiring money from many unspecified persons who are in the economic difficulties by sharing their roles systematically, systematically and artificially, and they are crimes of receiving money from them through loans, etc., which are a large number of victims, not being recovered from damage, and there is a need to punish them with severe social harm, such as damaging trust in state agencies, financial institutions, etc.

Defendants voluntarily depart from the Republic of Korea and voluntarily joined the Bosing Criminal Organization, and were engaged in activities as counselors for about four months, and Defendant A acquired approximately KRW 350 million, and Defendant C acquired approximately KRW 560 million, and KRW 560 million, and the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the period of the crime and the amount of damage.

Each officer and staff member of the Bosing Crimes committed acts essential for the commission of all crimes regardless of the seriousness of the role performed by them. Thus, it cannot be said that the Defendants’ role in the Bosing Crimes is relatively minor and the profits gained therefrom are less minor than those of the Defendants.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, etc. as shown in the records and pleadings, the sentence of the lower court is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is difficult to view that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.