All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, and the evidence of confiscation Nos. 1 to 5) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Bosing crime consists of organized, planned, and intelligent and social harm, and even where part of the crime is involved due to the difficulty in arresting the entire organization, it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant even if he/she participated in the crime. The Defendant took part in the domestic withdrawal book and took part in the collection of the passbook to receive the amount of money acquired, taking part in the instant crime. The Defendant took part in the role of collecting the amount of money acquired, and took part in the instant crime. The Defendant was subject to suspension of indictment three times due to the suspicion that the Defendant transferred an electronic financial medium essential for the criminal act of Bosing, and the amount of damage acquired by the Defendant is also disadvantageous to the circumstances.

However, the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing a crime and is against the law, and that there is no record of criminal punishment is more favorable.

The court below determined a sentence by taking into account all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below on the ground that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the court below.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, equity with similar cases, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case’s records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be excessively heavy or unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is all rejected.

3. Conclusion: Defendant and prosecutor.