The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seoul Central District Prosecutors 2020Mo1678.

1. As to the decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal that the defendant sentenced the punishment of imprisonment for two years and two months and confiscation, the defendant appealed respectively on the grounds that the punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

2. The lower court, upon receiving an application for compensation order filed by an applicant for compensation, ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 20 million to the applicant for compensation in collaboration with the applicant for compensation who is an accomplice’s name and infinite.

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the defendant paid 8 million won to the applicant for compensation and agreed to pay 8 million won out of the amount acquired through deception.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in criminal procedure because the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is unclear.

Therefore, the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation should be dismissed, so the part of the compensation order among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

3. The singishing crime on the grounds of appeal by both parties is a crime committed in a systematic and planned manner against many and unspecified persons. It is very poor that the crime is committed on the basis of a major crime committed against the economically and socially weak persons, such as making it more difficult for them to use the singish site.

In particular, the defendant has a key role in receiving money from victims while working as a credit card company's staff or a public prosecutor's office's staff, and the amount of fraud is not so big that the defendant's responsibility is considerably heavy.

However, the accused recognizes both crimes, and repents wrongs, and there is no record of criminal punishment in addition to fines twice.

In addition, considering the fact that the defendant paid part of the amount acquired by deceit to the victims when the defendant was in a trial, it is likely that the sentence of the court below may be mitigated.

Therefore, on unfair sentencing.