All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months, and Defendant B.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A-1 and June, Confiscation, Defendant B-1 and May, Confiscation, Defendant C-1 and the first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and two months, and the second instance court: imprisonment for a period of eight months, Defendant D- one year and four months, Defendant E- one year and four months, Defendant E- one year and two months, and confiscation) are too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of this court decided to concurrently examine the appeal cases of the first instance judgment against Defendant C and the appeal cases of the second instance judgment against Defendant C. On the other hand, each of the offenses which the court found guilty in each of the lower judgment is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part on Defendant C and the second instance judgment of the first instance judgment shall be reversed

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, D, and E

A. Each of the crimes of this case, which are common to the Defendants, is a so-called telephone financial fraud crime that acquires money from many unspecified victims by forming an organization, and a related crime that facilitates such a crime, and there is a very poor quality in that many people plan in advance, share their roles, and is committed against many unspecified victims.

The crime requires strict punishment in light of the fact that it is difficult to regulate because the applicable law is imminent and planned, and that there is a great social harm. Considering the characteristics of the crime, the role of the subordinate person (such as the solicitation of passbook, withdrawal or remittance of cash deposited from victims) is an essential element for the crime. Therefore, the degree of participation is insignificant solely on the ground that it is the subordinate person.

However, all the Defendants were led to the confession of the entire crime, against their mistake, and the Defendants directly obtained the crime, such as the fraud in this case.