All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and B did not recognize the fact that they committed the so-called “wishing” crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no prior fact in collusion with other assistance personnel and there was no prior fact in committing the crime.

B. 1) The Defendants: the lower court’s punishment on the Defendants is too unreasonable, as they are too unreasonable. 2) The prosecutor’s office: the lower court’s punishment on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts duly admitted and investigated by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, in particular, the status and role of Defendant A and B, and the specific methods and process of committing the instant crime, even if the Defendants were not well aware of the entire content of the instant crime, it can be deemed that the Defendants performed the role of withdrawing cash, recognizing the fact that the Defendants committed financial fraud, such as Bosing, at least, did not know the Defendants

In addition, as long as the Defendants served as part of the entire crime, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants committed the instant crime in collusion with other accomplices.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendants are either initial offenders or having no record of punishment of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier than imprisonment without prison labor, and are against the mistake.

However, the amount of damage in this case is large, and the defendants did not receive a letter of suspicion from the victims.

In addition, in full view of the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, health status, criminal records, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is adequate.

Therefore, the defendants and the prosecutor's arguments are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is groundless, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.