Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and a fine of 5.0

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C1 misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) Defendant B and C merely did not know that the money received from Defendant A was the gold of the telephone financial fraud (hereinafter referred to as “scamscam”), and only did the money without registration, without knowing that the money received from Defendant B was the gold of the telephone financial fraud (hereinafter referred to as “scam”).

Nevertheless, the court below recognized Defendant B and C as Defendant A’s accomplice, and sentenced Defendant B and C guilty of the facts charged of fraud, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or of misapprehending of legal principles.

B) The part of Paragraph 2 (1) of the decision of the court below as to the crime list Nos. 663, 775, 1260 through 1264, and 1470 of the annexed crime list as to the judgment of the court below is merely the details of the defendant B and C's living expenses, not the amount of money which caused non-registered exchange.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, thereby making a judgment of conviction on this part.

(2) Of seized articles for which the lower court sentenced Defendant B to forfeiture, 2,15 of KRW 50,00 (Evidence 8), 10,00 won (Evidence 9), 2,04 of KRW 10,00 (Evidence 10), and 5,00 won (Evidence 10) were to be provided only for an act in violation of foreign exchange transaction law to be carried out immediately, and thus, it is not subject to forfeiture under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act or the Criminal Act.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby pronounced confiscation.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. After the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal against Defendant A and the prosecutor, there is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of Defendant A.

In light of all the circumstances asserted by Defendant A and the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A is heavy, even if it is considered that the instant case’s records and the changed reasoning of the lower judgment are inconsistent with the grounds of appeal.