The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for eight months, respectively.

1. The decision of the court below (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and two months, and Defendant B: 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following determination on Defendant A is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

Since the fraud of the term “Sishing” is committed against many and unspecified persons in a planned and systematic intelligence manner by misrepresenting himself/herself to a financial institution or a public institution, it not only causes damage to many good citizens, but also causes damage to a large number of people, such as undermining the trust of a financial institution or a public institution, and promoting the general society of society, and thus, it is highly likely that the perpetrator of a net would be punished strictly.

The defendant was involved in the phishing fraud in collusion with the staff of the phishing operations in collusion with many and unspecified persons by calling for an unspecified number of people, misrepresenting the staff of the financial institution, and directly deceiving the victims.

The sum of the victim's six and the amount acquired through the crime of this case reaches 110,2410,000 won.

On the other hand, the following conditions are favorable.

It seems that the defendant is against the depth of the crime of this case by directly finding victims and neglecting the victims.

The Defendant voluntarily ceased to commit the instant crime.

The defendant repaid the amount of damage in the court below and the appellate court.

The victims do not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent between all the victims and the defendant.

There is no criminal history against the defendant.

In addition, considering the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, the age of the Defendant, sexual conduct, environment, etc., as a whole, various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

B. The following determination on Defendant B is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

The fraud of “Sishing” is an unspecified number of people.