All appeals by the defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ mistake is against the Defendants, and the economic situation is difficult, the extent of the Defendants’ participation in the instant fraud is relatively low, and the profits actually acquired are not much high, and the Defendants’ crime and fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive should take into account equity with the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act in relation to the crime of this case and the crime of fraud in which the Defendants committed the crime of this case ought to be judged at the same time, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants each

B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case by the prosecutor is the so-called “Sishing” crime, and there is a need to eradicate the Defendants through severe punishment because the amount of damage is considerable in a systematic and planned manner against many unspecified victims and the amount of damage is very harmful to society, etc., it is unfair that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible.

2. The Defendants recognized the Defendants’ mistake and opposed to the judgment. On May 4, 2016, the Defendants were sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and two months for fraud at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on July 16, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2016. The crime of this case and the crime of fraud for which the Defendants committed by the Defendants should take account of equity with the case of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, they expressed their intent that they do not want punishment of the Defendants. Meanwhile, each of the crimes of this case is a telephone financing crime, which is a systematic and planned intelligent act, and it is not good that the crime of this case is committed, and there is a great social hazard that the Defendants A had the account owner withdraw the money from a bank, which was supervised by the Defendants in the surrounding area, and if they were supervised by the Defendants, the name of the Defendant B to the Defendant’s employee under his name.