The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Defendant

A.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and defendant B: imprisonment for eight months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with Defendant A’s 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, the victim D submitted a written application for non-prosecution of punishment against Defendant A at the trial of the lower court because the new sentencing data was not submitted in the trial after the pronouncement of the lower judgment. However, the victim already submitted a written agreement to the investigative agency on March 11, 2019, which is the investigation stage, with Defendant A (Evidence No. 895 of the record of evidence). Since such circumstance had already been reflected in the lower judgment, the above written application for non-prosecution is not deemed a new sentencing data.

There is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and considering comprehensively the sentencing factors expressed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive of committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion due to its excessive absence.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant B’s crime of Bohishing and Bohishing fraud requires a strict punishment of harm that may cause to society as a whole by means of planned and organized conduct against many and unspecified persons and massing a large number of victims. Even if Defendant B and Defendant A decided to play a role in delivering the withdrawn money from the victim, such act is an essential role in the crime of Bohishing, and it is recognized that Defendant A actually received the money that the victim acquired.

However, Defendant B is the first offender with no criminal power, and the crime of this case is committed.