The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 11 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing in both cases)

A. In light of the degree of Defendant participation and the fact that there is no profit from the instant case, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the prosecutor Defendant took part in the withdrawal of the organization of the Bosing fraud crime, and the waste of Bosing on society, the sentence of the court below is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant is a domestic first offender.

As both parents reside in Korea, it is recognized that the circumstance in which it is difficult for them to live together with their families when inferred due to the confirmation of this case is recognized.

However, in this case, the defendant acquired the means of access used for the so-called Bosing crime, and withdrawn the amount of damage from Bosing and deposited it to the steering staff, and the defendant was in charge of the principal and core roles of the entire Bosing fraud.

Even if the defendant was involved in the crime by day after receiving a daily allowance, the degree of his participation can not be deemed to be somewhat weak.

The circumstances that are difficult to arrest the whole organization or to recover the amount of money by fraud should also be considered due to the nature of the Bosing crime committed in the form of the occupied organization.

The systematic fraud for unspecified or multiple victims, such as the instant case (the amount less than KRW 100,00) is set forth in the sentencing guidelines as three years by imprisonment with prison labor for a lower limit of one year and six months, and there is no special reason to determine a sentence lower than the said section in the instant case where the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act is concurrently committed.

In addition, considering the motive of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, the age, character and conduct of the Defendant, and criminal records, etc., various circumstances constituting the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s appeal is with merit.