The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for one year and six months, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (two years and eight years and one year and two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As a result, it is inevitable to take into account the social risks of telephone financing fraud, which are concentrated on the socially weak by sharing roles in accordance with the pre-determination plan, and thus leads to the organized commission of crime, and thus, a large number of victims. In particular, it is inevitable to impose severe punishment equivalent thereto.

In addition, the Defendants took charge of telephone counselors in the call center and directly deceptioned the victims. In light of this role, the degree of participation is not easy.

In addition, Defendant A committed the crime of this case without being able to commit the crime during the period of repeated crime, even though Defendant B was under the period of imprisonment.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) all the Defendants appear to have an attitude of recognizing their mistake and reflecting their depth; (b) the period of the Defendants’ participation is considerably short-term compared to other accomplices (in the case of Defendant A, in particular, the period of the participation does not exceed two months); (c) Defendant A was in the first instance trial; (d) Defendant B did not want the Defendants’ punishment by mutual consent with all the victims of the instant case; (e) balance between the benefits gained by the Defendants through the instant crime and other accomplices; (e) details of the Defendants’ occurrence of the instant crime; (b) background leading up to the instant crime; (c) circumstances leading up to the commission of the crime; (d) age of the Defendants; (e) age of the Defendants; and (e) family environment; and (e) circumstances leading to the sentencing specified in the records and arguments, even if considering the aforementioned unfavorable circumstances

3. Accordingly, the lower judgment is reversed in its entirety in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is reasonable.