Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and the second instance court: imprisonment for a period of eight months and suspended execution for a period of two years, and community service order for a period of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant G’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months suspension, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

J (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) Defendant J’s issuance of access media to Defendant N and receipt of money does not constitute transfer of access media prohibited by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, merely because it was prepared to transfer to the final transferee.

(B) Defendant J did not raise a public contest on the transfer of Defendant A and access media.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

N (1) The fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles that Defendant N delivers and receives money to a person who is not his name, does not constitute the transfer of an access medium prohibited by the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, solely on the basis of the fact that Defendant N prepared for the transfer to the final transferee.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (6 months of imprisonment and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. The Prosecutor’s sentence against Defendant A, G, and J is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor, the appeal cases against the lower judgment were consolidated by ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor. Of the lower judgment, the part against Defendant A and the part against the lower judgment by the lower court on the first instance constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and each of the offenses against Defendant A and the decision by the lower court by the second instance on the second instance are deemed concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the lower court at the same time is deemed to be concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and the part against

3. Determination as to Defendant J and N’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether Defendant J and N transfer their access media.