The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the substance of the grounds for appeal in this case, the sentence imposed by the court below (two years of suspended sentence for ten months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The so-called "walishing" crime using a large number of unspecified persons is a crime of financial fraud, which is planned and organized, with the scope of damage, and has a structural character that is not easy to recover from damage, and there is a compelling reason to punish the defendant involved in such crime; the amount of fraud in this case exceeds 9,640,000 won; the defendant recovered damage or was not taken out from the victim; however, it is difficult to view that the defendant was not accurately aware of the appearance of the "walishing" crime; the defendant merely takes charge of the role of withdrawing the money deposited in the large passbook; the defendant did not take part in the crime since he was found to have committed an electronic financial transaction act on December 21, 2012, since he was found to have no record of qualification suspension; the defendant has no record of qualification suspension; the defendant has committed a wrongful act against himself; and the defendant has no reason to impose punishment on the defendant; and considering the defendant's age, condition of character and conduct after considering the following circumstances, there is no reason for sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the term “application of the statute” of the lower judgment is as follows: (a) the term “period of concurrent crimes” in the context of Articles 3, 14, and 17; (b) the most severe penalty prescribed in the crime of fraud;

1. The inclusion of days of pre-trial detention in the Criminal Act and Article 57 are written by mistake; and