Defendant

A All appeals against A and the Defendant B of the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., a fine of three million won) sentenced by the court below to Defendant B is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. It is recognized that Defendant A (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as “Defendant”) made a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing on the assertion of unfair sentencing, including the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of and reflects on the instant crime, the primary offender who had no criminal power prior to the instant case, and the circumstances to take into account the Defendant’s family relationship.

However, the Defendant’s participation in the crime of “Singing” is a planned and organized act against many and unspecified persons, and has great harm to society as a whole by massing a large number of victims, and the Defendant took charge of taking charge of the role of cash withdrawal and remittance of the commission of the crime of Bosing. The degree of participation is not easy. The Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims or recover from damage, even if the Defendant was named for 56 million won in total, up to the trial. There is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing at the trial, and there is no other special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be considered newly in sentencing at the trial, and in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant arguments and records, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessively excessive and exceeded

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant B, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of vagabonds, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Prosecutor asserts the grounds for sentencing.