A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts by the request of the “P”, Defendant B had Defendant A install VoIP Gawawawa machine at his own house, and did not know the circumstances that the above equipment was used for the crime of Bosing. There was no fact that Defendant A and P conspired with the Defendant for the crime of changing the phone number using the above equipment and other person’s communication intermediary business. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Telecommunications Business Act among the facts charged against Defendant B, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts. 2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending of the legal principles, which was sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation).

C. The prosecutor (e.g., 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant A, 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant B and confiscation) declared by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Defendant B also asserted that Defendant B had the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected Defendant B’s assertion on the erroneous determination of facts.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the records of this case, the above judgment of the court below is legitimate, and thus, Defendant B’s allegation of mistake is not accepted.

3. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination of unfair sentencing by both parties, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, compared to the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Each of the instant crimes in which the Defendants participated constitutes the means or core element of the crime of Bosing.