1. All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed;

2. The compensation order against C, the applicant for compensation among the judgment below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed on the Defendant by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. 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, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Health Center, the Defendant, and the Prosecutor as an element of sentencing were already revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There was no particular change in the situation regarding the factors of sentencing after the lower judgment was rendered.

In addition, considering the various sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments of this case, such as the fact that the amount of damage caused by each of the instant frauds is not so large that the liability is heavy, the crime of Bosing is required to be committed in an organized and planned manner for many unspecified persons, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the grace period after having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment due to a crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court as it is too heavy or unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to deem that the sentencing of the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, we do not accept the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor.

3. Where an appeal is filed against a judgment of conviction on ex officio as to an order for compensation to C, an applicant for compensation, the confirmation of an order for compensation shall be interrupted, even if no objection is raised to the order for compensation, the order for compensation shall be transferred to the appellate court (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings) along with the accused case, and even where the original judgment is maintained in the appellate court,

(Paragraph 4) of the same Article.