The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The respective punishment of the court below (the first crime: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second crime as decided by the court below for two years: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months) is too 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.

After committing the crime No. 2, the Defendant voluntarily entered the Republic of Korea to cooperate with the investigation.

The crime No. 1 of the holding constitutes a concurrent crime of fraud, etc. which became final and conclusive on March 31, 2014 and another concurrent crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a sentence should be imposed in consideration of the equity between the cases where the defendant was adjudicated simultaneously with the crime of fraud, etc. finalized under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

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, in the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the No. 1, performed the role of telecom, and performed the role of the team leader managing telecom, etc. in the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the No. 2 of the judgment.

On December 12, 2013, which was after the crime of crime No. 1 in the holding, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment due to fraud, etc. on December 12, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 31, 2014, and the execution of the above punishment was completed on June 11, 2014, and again committed a crime of No. 2 in the holding that he left China on June 1, 2014, and again returned to China. Thus, the nature of the crime is not good, and the risk of recidivism

In addition, taking into account the above circumstances, 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, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.