All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the court below's punishment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the above punishment against the Defendants is too uneased and unfair.

2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument in sentencing.

A. The so-called “scaming” fraud committed by the Defendants, which is common to the Defendants, constitutes the most malicious type of fraud in terms of the method of deception, the method of deception, the characteristic of planned and conclusive intention, and the fact that the crime is organized and sealed, among the criminal frauds that may be imposed up to 10 years ( statutory penalty) by means of full falsity.

In addition, the Defendants committed a crime repeatedly against a large number of victims, and most victims want to obtain a second financial right loan because they are not good economic circumstances, and such victims may be subject to a large amount of gold and mental damage that may be caused by fraudulentation. Therefore, the degree of illegality of the crime of this case committed by the Defendants is very high.

Therefore, considering the harm and injury of the above crime, even if considering the fact that the defendants were not in a leading position to plan the crime within the entire criminal organization or that the defendants did not have much profits from the crime, strict punishment is required against the defendants.

However, the defendants have the following favorable circumstances.

Both Defendants are aware of and reflect on crimes.

Defendants have no record of being punished for the same kind of crime.

The period of crimes committed by the Defendants is about two months.

B. Defendant A and D (i) The above Defendants are entitled to a lot of money at the time of departure from China for the instant crime.