A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the prosecutor (1) on the charge of the crime Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of the annexed list of crimes, based on evidence, all of which are found guilty, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Telecommunications Financial Fraud Group, the total liability of which is “B” was constituted at a singing center in an irregular place in China’s Cheong City (hereinafter referred to as “Singing Center”), and, by misrepresenting the employees of financial institutions against many and unspecified citizens of the Republic of Korea, conspired to acquire money by means of “sing” through a “sing” method. The Defendant, who was staying in China from March 2016 to September 2018, went to China, and was willing to take part in the crime of the said Telecommunications Fraud by misrepresenting the employees of financial institutions from the above B, and thereby deceiving the victims by misrepresenting the employees of financial institutions from the above B. The Defendant resolved to take part in the crime of the said Telecommunications Fraud by obtaining a proposal that he/she would receive a certain percentage of the amount of damage as allowances.

On July 28, 2017, the Defendant shared the roles with the members of the aforementioned Telephone Financial Fraud Group and misrepresented the victim K to make loans to the 3.9% low interest rate of 23 million won at the phishing Center located in an unspecified place in the city of China, and received KRW 2,888,00,000 in total from the 3 victims in the same manner as indicated in the list of crimes in Q, etc. from around November 23, 2017, by falsely speaking to the effect that “the c.9% low interest rate should be repaid for the P card loan loan amount and deposit money should be deposited.” As such, the Defendant received KRW 2,0260,000 from the victim to November 23, 201 of the same year, including the sum of 3,0260,000 won by means of the same 3 victims as indicated in Q, etc.

This is the defendant B, etc.