The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering the nature of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, the fact that Defendant B did not reach an agreement with the victim, the criminal records of Defendant A, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (two years and six months of imprisonment with labor for Defendant A, one year of imprisonment with labor for Defendant B, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and one hundred and twenty hours of social service) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. As to Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A, Defendant A’s act as a means of collecting cash of the Bosing crime, forging documents under the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission and uses it to Bosing victims, and taking a serious injury that requires eight weeks’ medical treatment at the end of a minor trial with the victim of the victimized crime, etc., and the nature of the crime is heavy.

In addition, Defendant A had been sentenced to the suspended execution period, but on November 2, 2017, the Changwon District Court sentenced Defendant A to two years of suspended execution for the violation of the Special Act on the Refund of Victims to Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud, etc., and committed the instant crimes during the suspended execution period.

However, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment seems to be somewhat unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Even if the materials submitted in the trial of the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and in full view of all other reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unhued.

4. Accordingly, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A is reversed.