The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of telephone financial fraud, such as the instant crime, is committed in a planned and systematic manner against many and unspecified persons, and the scope of damage is a non-discriminatory and limited, as well as the damage recovery is not easy, and thus, the nature of the crime is very bad and strict punishment is required. The Defendant, while presenting an official document in the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission against a large number of unspecified victims, assumes a large amount of personnel from the victims by misrepresenting them from the Financial Supervisory Commission, and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim G from among victims of the crime of aiding and abetting fraud up to the trial.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant denied the crime in the lower court; (b) made a confession at the trial for more than six months; (c) made his mistake against himself while living in custody; (d) the Defendant took part in the crime of fraud; (b) the Defendant committed an attempted crime; (c) the Defendant committed a part of the crime in question; (d) the Defendant did not have much profit from the crime in this case; (e) the Defendant agreed to the remainder victims except the victim G among the victims of the crime of aiding and abetting fraud; and (e) the Defendant was the first offender with no record of criminal punishment; and (e) other circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the motive, background, means and methods of the crime in this case; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, and environment, etc. as expressed in the argument in this case, the sentence of the lower court is deemed unfair

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is with merit. Thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is followed after pleading.