Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and first instance judgment against Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months, confiscation, and second instance judgment against Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for two months) declared by the Prosecutor’s lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

B. The above sentence sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance prior to determining ex officio the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A and the grounds for appeal against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance.

This Court decided to jointly examine the appeal cases against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2. Since each of the offenses of the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant A is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part against the defendant A among the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court below No. 2 cannot be maintained.

B. There is no record that Defendant M has been punished in the Republic of Korea until the public prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant M and the judgment on Defendant M’s appeal has yet to be made, and the above Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime is not significant, etc. are favorable to the above Defendant.

On the other hand, the so-called "Sishing" crime, such as the crime of this case, is a serious crime that leads to a serious apprehensions for good people's lives by causing serious adverse effects on the trust relationship with the entire society, as well as to maintain a large number of victims in a short period of time. The withdrawal of cash made by Defendant M in the crime of this case is an essential part of the establishment of the Sishing crime. Thus, the above defendant's liability for the crime of this case is minor.

In this case, the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case is not small, and Defendant A compensateed for part of the victim R, but the above victim's damage has not yet been fully recovered, and Defendant M has recovered the above victim's damage.