The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

(a) Sentencing 1) The scope of recommendation [the scope of recommendation] on the sentencing guidelines set out in the range of punishment [the scope of recommendation] on the statutory applicable sentencing guidelines (a period of less than 100 million won) and the area of mitigation (a period of one to two years and six months) (a period of less than 100 million won)] (a special mitigation (a period of one to two years and six months): Where a mitigation factor is simple fence, penalty not to be imposed, or considerable damage has been recovered: Where a person commits a crime for an unspecified or many unspecified victims or repeatedly for a considerable period of time;

B. Specific determination on the crime of fraud of this case is an organized and planned criminal by deceiving the money from the victim, and there is a serious harm to society as a whole by massing an unspecified number of victims, and as such, it is not easy to arrest the criminal in the form of an organization in which the crime was committed in the form of an organization in which the method of the crime was artificially advanced. Therefore, there is a high need to prevent recurrence by taking account of the degree of participation of the persons who participated in the crime, and punishing the persons who actually committed the crime with severe punishment.

In addition, the above A.

As seen in this paragraph, according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year even when considering the circumstances where the damage was recovered due to simple gathering and the victim was not subject to punishment.

In full view of these circumstances and other circumstances, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background, means and consequence of the crime, and the remaining circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable since it is too unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable.