The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment and one year and six months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the telephone financial fraud crime regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing requires strict punishment; (b) the disadvantage of the victims due to each of the crimes of this case, including the Defendant’s injury to a considerable amount; (c) the confession by the Defendant; (d) there was no record of criminal punishment except for the crime of embezzlement of stolen property; and (e) there was no record of criminal punishment except for the one-time fine; (d) the Defendant paid the amount corresponding to a part of the damage in the trial; and (e) the Defendant has reached an agreement with the victims by paying the money corresponding to the part of the damage amount; and (e) the Defendant has been detained for a considerable period of time when he had been detained in custody without social experience, and other favorable circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and process of the crime;

B. Where an appeal is filed against a conviction on a judgment of conviction on a compensation order, the order to order a distribution is transferred to the appellate court along with the accused case (Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings). Therefore, the Defendant appealed only against the accused case among the judgment below, but deemed ex officio

The lower court ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 17 million to B who made an application for compensation, and KRW 10,569,592 to C who made an application for compensation.

However, according to the records, since the defendant paid part of the amount of damage to the applicant for compensation in the trial and agreed with the applicant for compensation, the part of the compensation order among the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is because the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear.

3. Accordingly, the decision of the court below regarding the part other than the compensation order.