All of the appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and the appeals filed by the Defendants C and D are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The public prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and eight months, confiscation, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, Defendant D: imprisonment of one year and six months; confiscation; imprisonment of two years; imprisonment of two years; confiscation; imprisonment of two years; confiscation; confiscation; Defendant F; imprisonment of one year and six months; confiscation); and confiscation of one year and six months) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant C and D is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants’ participation in Defendant A, B, E, and F “Sishing” crime is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendants, on the following grounds: (a) the method of the commission of the crime results in organized, planned, intelligent, intelligent, and unspecified persons’ non-discriminatory and serious damage; (b) the trust relationship in the overall society has a serious adverse effect on society; and (c) the damage has not been completely recovered.

However, Defendant A and F are primary offenders without criminal records, and Defendant B has no record of crime except for those subject to a fine, suspension of guidance, and suspension of indictment once for a double-class crime. Defendant E is subject to juvenile protective disposition on several occasions due to a double-class crime, but there is no record of punishment for the same crime. Defendant A and B agreed with some victims in the original judgment, the Defendants recognized the instant crime and are against the Defendants, and other various sentencing conditions such as the Defendants’ age, sex behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, degree of damage, and circumstances after the crime are considered, it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentence imposed on the above Defendants is too unjustifiable and unfair.

B. As to Defendant C and D, Defendant C did not have any record of crime except for Defendant C’s protective disposition and suspension of indictment one time for a double-class crime. Defendant D was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment one time due to a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and there was no record of punishment other than that of a juvenile protective disposition once for a double-class crime. Defendant C and D agreed with some victims at the lower court, and Defendant D agreed with the victim A in the first instance trial.