The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of appeal (one month of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfluent to the prosecutor (the Defendant).

2. The fact that the Defendant, in the first instance trial, recognized dolusence and reflects the depth of the Defendant, and 4.8 million won, which is part of the amount of damage of this case 10 million won, was attempted, and paid and agreed on the payment of the victim 4 (amount of damage 70.3 million won) and part of the amount (amount of KRW 10.2 million) at the original trial, and the fact that there was no particular criminal record is favorable to the Defendant.

However, as in the instant case, the crime of Bosing, like the instant case, needs to be strictly punished even for some of the participants, because there is a very great harm that may inflict on society, such as the method of committing the crime of massing a systematic and planned intelligent and large number of victims and causing financial institutions to be in good faith. Since the collection and delivery of cash is an essential element to complete the crimes of Bosing, the degree of involvement of the Defendant is light.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, even if there were many suspicion circumstances, the defendant delivered cash without properly verifying it, and the amount of damage that flows into the criminal organization reaches KRW 100 million.

The situation of victims who agreed with some victims in the court below, but were not recovered properly, but have deteriorated more economically.

As such, examining various sentencing conditions indicated in the record and the changed theory of this case, such as the fact that the defendant's liability for the crime is not less than that of the crime, it is inevitable to punish the defendant, that there is considerable amount of damage out of the amount of fraud, sentencing cases of similar cases (one year from June to three years), and the scope of the recommended punishment based on the sentencing guidelines due to systematic fraud (one year to June 3 years, even in view of the mitigation area) and the scope of the recommended punishment based on the sentencing guidelines due to systematic fraud, the court below's sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable.

3. If so, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.