The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years and six months, respectively.

seizure.

The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal (for defendant A: imprisonment of four years and six months, and defendant B: imprisonment of four years and four years) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. According to the judgment of Defendant A, the crime of this case was committed on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant released the money remitted by the victims to other accounts designated by the above organization while playing a responsibility for the withdrawal of the staff of the Washington; and (b) wired the amount of KRW 31.25 million in cash to the other accounts designated by the said organization; and (c) thereby disturbing the order of electronic financial transactions by taking over an access medium, such as cash card in the process; (d) in light of the circumstances of the crime and the details of the crime, the liability for the crime was heavy; (e) the crime of Boscam appeared in the form of intelligence and the social harm caused by the above crime was serious; (e) the victim X, BN, BO, BO, BX, CO, CY, CY, CY, CY, CF, CG, CG, CG, DB, DB, and D and D were not agreed to be unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, when the defendant made a confession of the crime of this case in the trial of the court, the defendant made a smooth agreement with the victim I, Q, BY in the trial of the court below, and the victim II, BM, BA, BW in the trial of the court below, and the defendant did not want the punishment of the defendant. The defendant did not have any specific criminal history other than those subject to a fine twice due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant's family members want to have a clear social relation, such as the defendant's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife, etc., it seems that the crime of Bosphish is clearly related to the defendant's social relation. The crime of Bosphish needs to seek fairness in sentencing to a certain extent consistent with the degree of participation in the crime, frequency of the crime, the amount of damage, and the degree of damage recovery. In sentencing, there is a need to maintain adequate proportionality corresponding to the nature of the crime and responsibility in sentencing.