All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, violation of laws, and improper sentencing) did not have an intention to participate in the criminal conduct of licensing, and is not a joint principal offender.

The amount of punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

B. The determination of the amount of punishment by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, on the grounds stated in the reasoning of the judgment, found that the Defendant, on the grounds as indicated in the judgment, was aware of the fact-finding and legal violation that the act of the Defendant, such as the one-person D team leader, constitutes the one-time phishing crime, but, on the basis of the combination of D team leader, etc., received the amount of damage from the victims in order or through the combination of explicit intent, thereby contributing to the crime of the

The recognition was recognized.

Examining the record, the decision of the court below is correct, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment in violation of law.

B. It is true that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is lower than the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set out in the attached sentencing guidelines (at least two years and eight months).

However, while considering the nature of the crime, the scale of damage, the failure to recover damage, etc., the court below imposed the punishment by taking into account the defendant's conclusive intentional intent, acquired profits, and criminal records.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing elements, and there is no change in sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

The lower judgment cannot be respected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Examining the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing set forth in the sentencing guidelines for fraud, the court does not seem to be unfair because the amount of the lower judgment exceeds the reasonable scope of discretion, even if it re-examines the sentencing factors set forth in the sentencing guidelines for fraud and other factors of sentencing.

3. The appeal by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is without merit.

All of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.