All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant B, E), Defendant B, and E were calculated by taking into account only the period of stay in China and expected profits. Since the criminal proceeds that the above Defendants actually acquired are much much more, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts about additional collection and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below’s punishment (i) imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection, and (ii) imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, additional collection, and (iii) Defendant C: imprisonment of 2 years and 2 years, confiscation, additional collection, and 2 years, confiscation, additional collection, and 2 years, confiscation, additional collection, five years, imprisonment of 2 years, confiscation, additional collection, and confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. It does not require strict certification to determine the misunderstanding of facts related to Defendant B and E’s additional collection, whether it is subject to confiscation, or whether it is subject to additional collection, or the recognition of additional collection amount.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do346 delivered on June 22, 1993, etc.). The court below calculated criminal proceeds derived from the activities of the instant criminal organization based on Defendant B and E’s prosecutor’s statement, materials on the status of entry and departure of the said Defendants, etc. The court below’s aforementioned calculation of criminal proceeds and its additional collection are justified.

Defendant

B and E’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) the nature of the crime of Bophishing is very poor; (b) the degree of Defendants’ participation as counselors of the organization of Bophishing crimes is not less than that of the Defendants; and (c) the Defendants returned home and voluntarily re-entered to China.