The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (one year of imprisonment, ten months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As in this case, the crime of phishing fraud, such as this case, against Defendant A and the prosecutor, committed a crime by misrepresenting an unspecified number of financial institutions or public institutions in a planned and systematic manner, causing serious damage to many victims, as well as causing serious harm to a large number of victims, such as undermining trust of financial institutions or public institutions, and promoting the general society of society, etc., and the Defendant, in collusion with the staff of phishing sing singing singing singing singing ssing sing sing ssing sing ssing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing sing ssss

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant has an opportunity to reflect the Defendant’s life of approximately seven months of detention; (b) the Defendant is the primary offender; (c) the profits acquired by the instant crime are not significant compared to the amount of defraudation; (d) the family members of the Defendant actively endeavored to recover the damage of the instant case; and (e) the restoration of damage was completed by mutual consent between 9 and 3 at the lower court and 12 victims; and (e) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s wrongful determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of sentencing against Defendant B, such as the instant case, is thereby socially malicious.