All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court's punishment (a year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, observation of protection, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

The sentence of the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uncompared and unfair.

Judgment

Since the so-called “scaming” crime in which the Defendant participated is highly harmful to the society by massing a large number of victims as a planned and organized act against many unspecified persons, it is necessary to strictly punish a person who participated in the crime.

However, it is recognized that the Defendant is against the recognition of all of the instant crimes, the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim, the fact that the victim agreed with the judgment, the equity in the case of being tried with the crime of fraud that became final and conclusive, and the court below determined the punishment in consideration of the above circumstances. In comparison with the first instance court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, health status, family relationship, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances constituting the conditions of sentencing, including the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too heavy or unreasonable.

In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the judgment of the court below in the third part of the disposition of the court below is clearly erroneous in the misunderstanding of the "three years of suspended execution", and the "two years of suspended execution" in the second part of the criminal facts of the court below is correct.