The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. In light of the gist of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) and the various circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant’s sentence against the Defendant is inevitable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was involved in the instant crime by taking charge of the role of the so-called “measures for delivery; (b) the amount of fraud by the instant crime is not less than KRW 18.2 million in total; and (c) the degree of the punishment and equity of the same and similar cases should be considered in light of the following: (a) a systematic intelligent crime that is closely committed against many and unspecified persons; (b) the social harm is so high that the damage therefrom is considerably high; and (c) the damage therefrom has been significantly spread; and (d) the Defendant has structural characteristics that are not easy to recover from the damage; and (b) the Defendant took charge of the role of the so-called “measures for delivery; and (c) the degree of participation in the instant crime is not easy

However, it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and against his mistake, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on August 17, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 22, 2017. On February 7, 2018, the same court was sentenced to six months of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. on February 15, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 15, 2018. The above crimes and the crimes of this case are all committed by the defendant at the same Bophishing organization, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's age, sex, intelligence, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and other various conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, and thus, the above assertion by the defendant is reasonable.

3. If so, the defendant-appellant.