The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of Bophishing is highly likely to cause harm to an unspecified number of victims, such as that the scope and scale of damage is significant, and that the victims actually suffer damage difficult to recover.

In light of the timing, method, and content of the crime, most of the crimes of this case committed while being tried due to the injury of victims E and F, etc., the crime of this case was committed.

The defendant was unable to reach an agreement with the victims until the court of first instance.

However, the defendant acknowledges the crime of this case, and the defendant does not have criminal records exceeding the fine.

The defendant has a relatively high probability of the necessity of edification as an early life in the society of 21 years of age.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and the Defendant’s first sentence of imprisonment for the first time due to the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the "Badero" in Part 20 of the fifth part of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed as "Baro", and the "the second part" in Articles 262, 261, and 258-2(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be deemed as "the second part", and the "the second part" in Articles 262, 261, 260(1), and 257(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be deemed as "the second part".

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 24. 7. 201