All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed on Defendant 1 and 2 (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, confiscation, additional collection of 10,000 won, and the second instance: fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

(b)the sentence imposed on the Defendant by the first instance judgment of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. The part of the judgment of the court below of the first instance is that the defendant confessions and reflects the criminal facts, and although the defendant failed to disclose specific and accurate facts to an investigative agency to the extent that it can be possible for persons related to narcotics crimes to file a criminal prosecution, he made efforts to provide information to persons related to narcotics crimes and to cooperate in the investigation. The crime of this case is a crime committed after the lapse of two years from the date on which the defendant completed the execution of punishment and was released.

On the other hand, there is a need to punish narcotics-related crimes because they cause serious social harm, and the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime several times, and the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of this kind.

In full view of such circumstances as the frequency of medication, the quantity of philophones in possession, the age, environment, sexual conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, etc., the court below did not seem to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, it does not accept all the arguments regarding the illegal sentencing committed by the defendant and the prosecutor.

B. The judgment of the court below in the second instance is favorable to the defendant, such as that the defendant confessions and reflects the criminal facts, that there is no criminal record of the same kind, and that the defendant does not seem to have obtained any profit due to the crime of this case

However, the crime of this case is not only impairing the reliability of the safety performance of electronic financial transactions.