The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant E, F, and I among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

F.For two years of imprisonment, Defendant E, and I, respectively.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants (a 12-year imprisonment; a 6-year imprisonment; a 3-year imprisonment; a 3-year imprisonment; a 3-year imprisonment; a 3-year imprisonment; a 4-year imprisonment; a 2-year imprisonment; Defendant E; and a 1-year imprisonment); and a 2-year imprisonment.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the records of this case with respect to Defendant A, B, C, D, and G and various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the age, sex and environment of the above Defendants, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

1) Defendant A led Defendant A to establish a singishing organization in the Philippines and to commit the singishing fraud.

Although the defendant's agreement with some victims (AK, CW, DF, EEC, EJ, and Special Injury AD, etc.) is recognized in the court below and the party trial, there is a lack of efforts to repay damage compared to the status, role, profit structure, etc. of the defendant.

2) Defendant B also paid damages to certain victims (such as AK, BH, EW, FH, FG, FG, GD, Q, and GU) in the lower court and the first instance court, and recognized the circumstances that were agreed upon smoothly.

However, the defendant served as a tracking agent in the middle part of the criminal organization of Bophishing crime, and the period of crime is also long.

In addition, victims (W, GO, etc.) who have acquired a relatively large amount of money did not repay the damage, and in particular W is suffering from a big damage by acquiring 200 million won or more through the crime of this case.

3) Defendant C and D are primary offenders, but the period during which Defendant C and D worked as an incentive.

There is no effort to recover damage until the trial is held.

4) Defendant G made efforts to recover damage, such as agreement with all the relevant victims or deposit of the amount of damage in the lower court and the trial court, and the self-denunciation circumstance is also recognized.

However, the defendant is the court below.