All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The court shall reject an application for compensation by the applicant for compensation.

The decision of the court below on the summary of the reasons for appeal is unfair because the punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence of the court below's decision is unfair because it is too unhued.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court ought to respect the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant is recognized to commit the instant crime.

The crime of this case appears to have been led by the person in whose name the crime was committed, and some of the crimes were attempted.

There is no benefit that the defendant has gained from the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the phishing fraud crime was committed in a systematic, planned, and intelligent manner, and as well as the massing of unspecified number of victims, most of the victims are suffering from severe damage to ordinary people who are economically poor.

The amount of defraudation of the crime of this case reaches approximately KRW 142 million.

Since the defendant has a number of records of committing the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, it is highly likely that the crime of this case will be committed again despite recognizing the social harm of the phishing crime and preventing the recidivism.

Until now, victims have not recovered from their damage.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and consequences, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the commission of the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be too heavy or unfair because it goes beyond the scope of appropriate and reasonable discretion.

The argument that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

3.The decision is made with regard to an application for a remedy order for the trial.