The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Seized No. 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (a long-term of one year, short-term of eight months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year, a short term of eight months, confiscation, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months, a short term of one year, confiscation, confiscation, Defendant C, and D: each of the maximum of ten months, a short term of eight months, confiscation, confiscation, Defendant E, and F: Each of eight months of imprisonment with prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the reasons for the ex officio appeal against Defendant A, the defendant was examined ex officio on November 3, 1998, and the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below as of November 3, 1998, but it is true that the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below, but the defendant was not a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act from the age of 19 to the age of 19. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the above defendant to an illegal sentence pursuant to Article 60 (1) of the Juvenile Act

B. The so-called “Sishing” crime, such as the instant crime of this case regarding the prosecutor’s remaining Defendants of the crime of this case, committed not only systematically, planned, and intelligently against many unspecified victims, but also requires severe punishment to the subordinate participants in the crime of withdrawal, delivery, and collection, due to the serious social and economic harm. The victims of the instant crime are the majority of the victims of the instant crime, and the total amount of damage is considerably large, and Defendant B, C, and D did not reach an agreement with the victims, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants appear to have the attitude of recognizing and opposing their entire criminal acts, and the past record of criminal punishment in Korea is not verifiable, and it cannot be considered that both Defendants B, C, D, E, and F are minors, and there is room for edification. Defendants E, and F are limited to the victims of their respective crimes in which they participated.