[Defendant A] The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ punishment (unfair sentencing) (i.e., imprisonment of one year and six months; (ii) confiscation; (iii) Defendant B’s imprisonment of two months and one year and eight months; and (iv) confiscation of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case under the common sentencing conditions of the Defendants is a crime of phishing fraud in which the victims obtain money from the persons who suffered damage systematically and systematically, and which causes serious harm to society as a whole, and the nature of the crime is very poor. As such, it is highly necessary to strictly punish those who participated in the crime because the method of receiving the crime of phishing fraud gradually becomes more intelligent and it is difficult for the general public to cope with it.

However, the Defendants did not merely take charge of the role of telephone counselors deceiving the victim, but did not take charge of the crime of this case, such as sharing the roles among the accomplices over a four-stage period. The Defendants committed the crime of this case with malicious smartphone display, and installed as if they were the case where the bank officially distributed the case at the bank, etc., the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime of this case is not easy.

In addition, the period during which the Defendants participated in the criminal conduct of the instant Bosing is shorter than one year, and the amount of damage during the said period is considerably larger than 195.7 million won, and most of the damage was not recovered, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

3. The above 2. Paragraph 2 of this case is disadvantageous to the defendant prior to the prosecutor's and the defendant's each argument about the unfair sentencing of the defendant A.

Meanwhile, the part of direct participation by the Defendant appears to be a crime listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 (a total of 7 million won) of the crime list in [Attachment 1] as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant appears to be a primary offender who has no record of crime, a depth of and reflects the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to be the same.