All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. As to the gist of the reasons for appeal, the prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair, and the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the judgment prosecutor and the defendant's arguments.

The fact that the defendant recognizes his mistake and reflects his fault, the benefit acquired by the defendant is less than the total amount of damage in this case and the period of participation in the crime is not long, and the fact that there is no record of punishment beyond the same crime or fine is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of Bosing, like the instant case, is committed systematically and systematically against many and unspecified persons, and the crime is highly bad, such as making the economically and socially weak persons a major target of the crime, causing more difficult circumstances by using the fluorite wife, causing individual victims to suffer from considerable mental symptoms in addition to property damage, as well as causing confusion and incompetence in the financial transaction order, thereby undermining the trust of the whole society.

In addition, since the Criminal Code has become more intelligent, the scope of damage has been expanded in a non-discriminatory manner, and the damage has a structural characteristic that is not easy to recover, it is necessary to strictly punish persons who have participated in the crime in order to eradicate it.

Until the trial, victims did not recover their damage.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as indicated in the instant pleadings, and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, it is recognized that the lower court’s sentence exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.