All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation 24,00,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) against the Defendant (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant against the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Bophishing crimes cause serious social harm, and it is inevitable to severely punish those who participated in the crime.

The Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, and committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period.

The amount acquired by the defendant in return for the crime of this case is also a considerable amount of million won.

However, the defendants recognize and reflect all crimes.

Some victims were not punished for the defendant.

Part of the profits that the defendant acquired through the crime of this case was seized by Co-Defendant B, and the court below sentenced the forfeiture thereof.

As above, the lower court seems to have sentenced to three-year imprisonment, considering all the sentencing conditions disadvantageous to the Defendant.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence, and taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too minor or unreasonable.

Therefore, both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. According to the facts charged in the judgment of the court below as to the application for compensation at the trial, the defendant suffered damages of KRW 24,00,000 by committing the instant fraud against the applicant for compensation.