A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and eight months.

A. 8 Plopon 8 Plopon 1.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant 1) (hereinafter “Defendant 2019 Highest 519”) ① The Defendant was aware of this part of the crime as a part-time lecturer that collects commercial sex acts expenses or sports earth funds, and there was no criminal intent or intent to commit a crime against Bophishing fraud. ② In light of the Defendant’s role, the Defendant is merely a principal offender, not a joint principal offender. ② The Defendant is merely a principal offender. ② Each sentence of unfair sentencing (the first instance court: imprisonment with labor for a year and six months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with labor for a two year and four months) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower judgment by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the first and second judgments were rendered to the defendant, and the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against them, respectively. The court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases. Each of the above judgments against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, each of the above judgments of the court below cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. 1) The defendant asserted the same purport as the above leader in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the above argument by the court below is just, and the above argument by the defendant is not reasonable. 2) Since the essence of the co-principal is functional control by division of work, the co-principal is in the functional control by co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal's co-principal.