Defendant

B All appeals against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence (two years of imprisonment with prison labor and confiscation, and one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor) that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the Defendants is unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s decision on the following grounds: (a) no new data on sentencing was submitted in the trial; and (b) no new data on sentencing was submitted.

Furthermore, even if the amount of harm inflicted on the society as a whole by means of a planned and organized act against many unspecified persons and massing a large number of victims, etc., it is recognized that the Defendants’ participation reaches KRW 170 million, even if the amount of damage inflicted on the Defendants’ participation in the crime of Bophishing fraud, Defendant A is the primary offender, Defendant B has no specific criminal record other than the two different types of fines, the Defendants are able to recognize the crimes in this case and not repeat the crimes in this case, and the degree of participation is relatively minor compared to Defendant A. In light of the following circumstances: (a) Defendant B’s participation is relatively minor; (b) the degree of participation is relatively minor compared to Defendant A; and (c) the sentencing factors indicated in the process of the pleadings in this case, such as the age, character and conduct of the Defendants and environment; (d) motive for the crime; and (e) circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by making it too heavy or unhued.

Therefore, each of the Defendants’ arguments against Defendant B and the Prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal against the Defendants by the Defendants B and the Prosecutor is without merit. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable.