Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

A. Defendant A1) In the event that no functional control over the crime of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is recognized, Defendant A1 did not have functional control over the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

must be viewed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant A as a joint principal offender in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the laws and the misunderstanding of the phishing financial frauds led to the conspiracy of crimes in order due to its nature, and the phishing is essential in the phishing. As such, the solicitation and delivery of the phishing passbook should also be deemed to exist, and the functional control of the act through essential contribution to the

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts and joint principal offenders, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment for 8 months; Defendant B; imprisonment for 6 months; suspension of execution for 2 years; community service order 120 hours; confiscation) against the illegal Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A’s functional control over the crime of fraud was over the Defendant A’s functional act.

In addition, the above defendant's main part in the crime of fraud of this case is collection and delivery of the access media, so the above argument is without merit.

B. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the defendant A knew about M and approximately 10 years prior to his/her request for delivery of the presidential passbook and the head of the Tong.