All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy or (the Defendant) it is too heavy.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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). The fact that recognizing a crime and misunderstanding are in depth, the primary offender is the fact that the Defendant actually acquired profits from the instant crime, the fact that some of the crimes are committed is favorable.

On the other hand, however, the crime of Bosing like the instant case is organized and planned, and the number of victims is masse, and most victims are socially disadvantaged, and thus there is a need to strictly punish them. The Defendant acted as the so-called “collection” to receive money directly from the victim by misrepresenting himself/herself to financial institutions or investigative agencies. The role as the collection method is essential for the completion of the crime of Bosing, and the degree of participation is significant, and the damage is not recovered.

The court below determined a punishment in consideration of the above circumstances, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing because new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial.

In full view of all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and theories of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment does not seem to be excessively heavy or light.

The defendant and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor in conclusion is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.