All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspension of execution for one year, and community service order for 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to Defendant A, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In view of the fact that the Defendant’s act constitutes a so-called “phishing” crime, the Defendant’s participation in the crime is not easy when taking into account the role of the Defendant who collected and stored the means of access, and removed and remitted the amount of damage from the Defendant using the means of access, and the degree of participation in the crime is not easy; the amount of damage reaches KRW 39,400,000 and did not recover from damage; in light of the circumstances favorable to the recognition of the crime and reflectability, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or it is so unftened.

B. The judgment of the court below that recognized the crime as to Defendant B and cooperated with the arrest of Defendant A is favorable, or that the court below already sentenced the suspension of the execution of imprisonment by taking into account the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below, and considering the doubt that the crime of this case may be part of the crime of Bosing, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too heavy in view of the fact that the defendant involved in the crime of this case was committed,

3. The appeal filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit and is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.