1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of relevant legal principles as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by the transfer of each of the means of access constitutes substantive concurrent crimes, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, as to Defendant B’s ground of appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of all of the charges in violation of each of the Electronic Financial Transaction Act from the following points: (a) the lower court’s judgment, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, No. 139 to No. 146, No. 1537, No. 1635, Dec. 3, 200; (b) each of the public electronic records, etc.

The court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on co-principals.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed.