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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (the Defendants: one and half years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment, and each one80 hours of community service order) is deemed unreasonable.

2. The judgment below held that each of the crimes of this case was committed in a systematic and systematic manner against many unspecified victims, and the defendants were involved in the crime of this case, which has a significant social harm, causing damage to the victims, and the total amount of damage is not only a considerable amount, but also Defendant B actively plays a role in viewing the victims in China. Defendant A misrepresented the staff of state agencies, enticed the victims, induced the victims, and intruded into the house to commit the crime and stolen money, and did not have a very good way to commit the crime. Defendant A led to the confession and reflect of the crimes of this case; the profits acquired by the defendants are not large amount in light of the amount of fraud; the defendants submitted 9.2 million won to the victims voluntarily and returned to the investigation agencies; the defendants paid damages to the victims of this case; and the victims and the above victims did not express their intent to punish the victims.

In light of the favorable circumstances such as the fact that all the Defendants were the first offender, and that it seems that they had made a favorable judgment beyond the suspicion that they would have been able to easily punish money, the court sentenced the Defendants to the community service order of two years of probation and 180 hours of each one year and six months of imprisonment.

However, the sentencing of the court below seems to be within the scope of reasonable discretion, and there is no change in the special circumstances or circumstances that can be newly considered in the sentencing since the judgment of the court below was rendered. Thus, the sentencing of the court below is too excessive.