The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Nos. 1 and 2 of seized evidence from the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The crime of telephone finance fraud and so-called “scaming” is also planned, organized, intelligent, and significant as well as significant as the result of the crime committed by misrepresenting a reliable organization, such as a State agency, etc., causing serious social harm caused by the crime to prevent the crime, such as creating a fresh and causing another expense to be incurred by another person for the prevention of the crime, as well as the total liability, call center, and the act of taking part in subordinate officers, such as recruitment books, face-to-face books, remittance books, etc., and thus, the degree of participation in the crime is low.

It is not possible to see that there is a need to strictly punish the subordinate officer's participation due to their participation in the crime. The defendant, as a face-to-face liability, has been involved in various crimes, such as deceiving the victims directly, misrepresenting the employees of the Financial Supervisory Service, and receiving money directly by using forged public documents, and it is recognized that the amount of damage in this case is relatively considerable.

However, in full view of all the factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below seems to be somewhat unreasonable, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant compensates the victims for all of the defraudeds; (b) the Defendant committed the crime; (c) the Defendant is the primary offender who has no record of the crime; and (d) the Defendant appears to have committed the crime; and (c) the criminal proceeds distributed by the Defendant appears to have not been much high.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is again decided as follows.

[Judgment] Summary of criminal facts and evidence recognized by this court is summary of facts and evidence.