The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Seized evidence shall be confiscated as provided for in subparagraphs 1 through 9.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is a so-called “singing” criminal by deceiving victims’ money through the Telephone Finance Fraud Act. The crime of this case is a serious crime that not only systematically, systematically, systematically, intelligent, and in a short period of time, multiple victims are engaged in massing, but also structural characteristics that are not easy to detect and arrest criminals are operated in the form of occupation organization, and the trust relationship with the entire society has a serious adverse effect on the people’s lives.

The Defendant’s crime is an act of taking over another’s access media that enables access to and withdrawal from another’s name, withdrawing the money obtained through the use of the media, and then remitting the money without passbook to the account designated by the general responsibility. In addition, the Defendant’s act is an essential role in the phishing crime, and considering that the phishing crime is carried out in a subdivision by taking account of the fact that the phishing crime is carried out through the participation of subordinate staff members, such as the inevitable withdrawal and remittance, the Defendant’s act of taking part in the phishing crime cannot be punished somewhat.

However, the Defendant was the first offender, and the entire crime of this case was led to confession.

The Defendant did not plan or participate in the entire crime of this case, but could easily impose money at 21 years of age at the time of the crime of this case, and was involved in the crime under the circumstance that the awareness of the seriousness of the crime was insufficient, and as it appears that daily allowances, not allowances, were paid to the Defendant, and that there was a high profit acquired compared to the same and similar cases.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In the court below, 1.5 million won was paid to the victim J, and 1.1 million won was paid to the victim C and 1.3 million won was paid to the victim K in the case of the party and the victims were not punished for the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and results of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.