The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The crime of this case is committed by deceiving 3,234,00 won from six victims by deceiving 3,234,00 won as if the defendant conspireds with his name in the Internet middle trading market. It is reasonable to sentence the defendant to the crime of this case in light of the following: (a) the defendant repeatedly committed fraud in the Internet middle and high trading market; (b) has been subject to criminal punishment several times; and (c) has committed again the crime of this case only one year after having been released from prison due to the use of computers, etc.; and (d) there is no data to deem that the damage has not been recovered and the defendant has endeavored to recover damage.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and against his mistake, the person who posted a letter of sales directly on the Internet market for the middle and high trading is a person without his name, and the defendant provided his account and mobile phone number to a person with no name, and distributed the amount of damage deposited in the above account, and the degree of participation in the crime is less than that of the above person with no name, and the amount of damage is less than that of the above person with no name, and the defendant does not enjoy all the above criminal proceeds, and the defendant does not enjoy all the above criminal proceeds, taking into account the defendant's age, career, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence, and the sentencing of the similar case as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime

Therefore, the defendant's argument is reasonable and the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and therefore, it is in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.