Defendant B and Defendant B of the lower judgment.

A. Defendant A’s punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) 1’s judgment of the lower court, the Defendant did not know of what amount the KRW 180 million transferred to Qac account under the name of the company P (P) operated by Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “P”), the Defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful profits and any negligence in writing, and the Defendant could not be punished for withdrawing money after the completion of deposit, which led to the number of frauds, such as a name-free computer.

Even if a crime of fraud by using computers, etc. is recognized, assistance is not sufficient in light of the following circumstances. ① Joint Defendant A first requested the Defendant to sell the passbook and talk to the surrounding people, and there is no need to request the co-Defendant A to seek a passbook.

The Defendant thought that there was an internal distribution between those who engage in an illegal gambling business and intended to withdraw the business fund, and did not think that the Defendant was to withdraw the money received as a collateral by entering another person’s information under the hacking Act, and did not know it.

② Of the money directly withdrawn by C, the Defendant did not acquire three copies of the remaining 10 million won check with his name-free persons, and both Co-Defendant A and C took place.

Because of the ‘componing report' project in China, it is merely for the CP to request that the CP appear well, and there is no amount of money to receive KRW 180 million from the transfer of KRW 100 million.

③ Defendant A and the joint Defendant C, who directly withdrawn money at the time of finding money by using one’s own Q vehicle, is a principal offender leading in committing a crime, and is only on the vehicle.