All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Circumstances favorable to the defendant are as follows.

The Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, and is against the law.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

Each of the crimes of this case is a so-called " Bosishing" crime, which took part in the role of a large number of people according to a thorough plan, and obtains money from an unspecified number of victims systematically and professionally.

The above crimes have an adverse impact on the trust relationship of the general society by making the general public influently with state agencies or financial institutions, etc.

The Defendant, while playing the role of the Telecomter, contributed essentially to the criminal conduct of Bosing.

The Defendant played a role in inducing AB, an accomplice, to the licensing organization of the instant case.

The defendant did not take any measures for the recovery of damage up to the trial.

The defendant has been punished for a fine on six occasions due to the same crime.

On October 209, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on August 20, 2009, and was sentenced to a punishment of two years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) on July 23, 2010 during the suspended sentence, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 6 of the same year, and the suspended sentence became invalidated. The Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even during the period of repeated crimes, for which the parole period has passed on June 29, 2012 during the execution of the said imprisonment, even if he was released on June 29, 2012 and released on August 21, 2012.

In addition to the above circumstances, the lower court’s judgment is to take into account the Defendant’s age, sex, career, environment, background and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments after the crime was committed.