All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant was aware of the duties related to sports discussions, and did not think that he was involved in the phishing crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, and the return of the victim) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the prosecutor (three years of imprisonment, and the return of the victim) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail with the lower court’s judgment on the lower court’s “defluence and judgment” column. Examining the lower court’s judgment closely compared with the records of the instant case, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, there were errors by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant's assertion of mistake 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 unfair argument of sentencing, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment as an appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant appears to have an attitude against the Defendant.

On the other hand, the physical phishing crime is very harmful to society as a systematic and planned intelligent crime that helps an unspecified number of victims.

The defendant has been punished for the same crime, and has committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period.

The victims did not receive any correspondence.

In addition, in full view of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and the result thereof, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime.