Defendant

All appeals filed by the Defendants A and B and by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B: The sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s each sentence against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The instant telephone financial fraud crime is a crime that actually causes damage to an unspecified number of victims by a planned and systematic method, and its nature is not very good, and there is a great need to punish the participants in order to eradicate such crime.

The extent of the Defendants’ participation in the instant telephone financing fraud crime is less than that of the Defendants.

shall not be deemed to exist.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendants recognized their mistakes and reflects their depth; (b) all the Defendants were initial offenders or did not have the same criminal record; (c) the Defendant’s account was suspended and the actual damage was not realized as the Defendant’s account was suspended; and (d) the Defendants’ motive, circumstances, status and role leading up to the instant crime; (b) the degree of participation and profit; (c) the balance of the Defendants’ punishment with the accomplices; (d) the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct; and (e) the circumstances after the commission of the instant crime; and (e) all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, are adequate and unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendants A, B and prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion, Defendant A and B’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.