Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for three years and six months, respectively.

A. The respective punishment of Defendant A (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and the fourth instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) the Defendant purchased a copy of a forged resident registration certificate and sold it to A, R, AH, AI, BK, and BL to facilitate their fraud, and there was no conspiracy to commit any criminal act, such as forging and exercising the aforementioned application for joining a mobile phone and acquiring a mobile phone.

Therefore, the Defendant is merely a aiding and abetting crime of fraud.

(B) Among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below of the third instance, each of the facts constituting a crime of violation of the Resident Registration Act that the defendant informed information on another person's resident registration number for profit, and the facts constituting a crime of forgery of private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, uttering of a forged official document, and fraud in collusion with Gap, etc. by providing a copy of the forged resident registration number to Gap, etc. among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court below of the court below of the first instance, each of the facts constituting a crime of forgery of private documents, uttering of a falsified document, uttering of a falsified official document, and prosecution of fraud constitutes a double prosecution and is unlawful.

(2) Each sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, the second instance judgment: imprisonment for one year and six months, and the third instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the judgment of the court below in the first and fourth cases, Defendant B filed each appeal against the judgment of the court below in the first, second, and third cases, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case.

However, each of the crimes of the first and fourth judgment against Defendant A and the crimes of the first, second, and third judgment against Defendant B are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act is applicable.