All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Regarding the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below (a year and June), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the defendant to go too much away, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s improper claims for sentencing.

It is necessary to strictly punish the telephone financing fraud crime, such as the instant case, because it is planned and organized against many and unspecified persons, and it is not easy to recover damage from a large number of victims.

The Defendant plays a role in the so-called "cash collection" to deliver money to the victims for money, and the degree of participation in the crime is important, and it is not good for the victims to commit crimes by presenting the certificate of members of the Financial Supervisory Service forged to the victims and the official documents under the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission.

It is reasonable that the total amount of fraud by the defendant involved in the crime is about KRW 190 million.

Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the defendants recognize all crimes, and repent the errors.

The defendant has been punished once by a fine of different kind.

The defendant is exempted from participating in the crime in the situation that he left North Korea as a North Korean defectors.

The victim R does not want to be punished against the defendant by mutual consent with the defendant, and the victim I seems to have received the amount of damage as the defendant is arrested at the scene.

Such circumstances are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, if the defendant's age, career, sex, environment, family relationship, social relation, motive and background of the crime, the degree and frequency of benefit gained by the crime, and circumstances after the crime are considered, the sentence of the court below shall be within the scope of discretion in sentencing.