The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of the defendant (unfair sentencing) by the court below (one month of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The so-called “singishing crime” is a crime of acquiring large amounts of money by misrepresenting himself/herself to an investigation agency, etc., which is highly likely to be a planned and organized malicious crime, and thus, it is inevitable for the Defendant to have contributed directly to the acquisition of criminal proceeds as a means of withdrawal by Bosing organizations. Furthermore, even though the Defendant was suspended from indictment for transfer of access media around May 2013, the Defendant used the Defendant’s financial account again for the instant criminal act in Bosing around May 2014. After committing the instant criminal act in 2015, it appears that the Defendant continued to be involved in the instant criminal act by providing his/her financial account in the same manner as in 30 days after committing the instant criminal act and attempting to withdraw the instant criminal act, taking into account the fact that the Defendant has already acquired part of the amount of damage of this case, the Defendant shall be subject to strict punishment corresponding to the size of the said criminal act, regardless of the size of his/her personal gain.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, it is deemed unfair for the court below to determine that the punishment imposed by the defendant against the defendant is somewhat inappropriate, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant made a confession of all the crimes as the first offender; (b) the victim B repaid the damage amount of KRW 10,000,000 to the victim; (c) the victim did not want the punishment against the defendant due to the victim's agreement with the victim; (d) the defendant appears to have been involved in the crime of this case due to economic difficulties; and (e) the defendant was not an employee of the telephone financial fraud organization who has been continuously withdrawn.

Therefore, the sentencing of the defendant is unfair.