Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and four months, Defendant B imprisonment with prison labor of one year and ten months, and Defendant C.

A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (Defendant E, H) and H are merely engaged in the role of telephone counselors in the instant crime of telephone financing fraud and did not participate in the transfer of the access medium. As such, Defendants (1) and (2) conspired with other trillion staff members regarding the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the transfer of the access medium among the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant facts charged”).

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(2) In light of the various circumstances, each sentence imposed on the Defendants (Defendant A: 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment; Defendant B; Defendant C; Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and 4 months; Defendant D, E, and G: imprisonment for a year and 1 year and 2 months; Defendant F: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and 1 years; Defendant H; Defendant H’s imprisonment for a year and 1 year and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the various circumstances of the prosecutor (unfair sentencing), each sentence against the Defendants declared by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant E and H, and ex officio determination as to the Defendants

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that no one transfers or acquires any access medium to electronic financial transactions, but the telephone financial fraud organization to which the Defendants belongs was transferred the check card, etc. of the company bank account in the name of women from X on March 27, 2013 in accordance with the crime plan.

In addition, the Defendants, in collusion with the names of the responsible persons (R), acquired a total of 236 access mediums over a total of 236 times, such as 2nds in the attached Table 2 of the judgment below, by the same method from November 5, 2012 to September 30, 2013, in collusion with the names of the responsible persons (R), (i) and (ii) the joint principal offender.