All appeals filed by A, C, and D and each appeal filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. Prosecutor 1) According to Defendant B’s cell phone text message photographs claiming that Defendant B was erroneous, the above Defendant participated in the crime.

Although it can be recognized that from January 2014, prior to March 2014, the Si-do-ro had participated in the instant crime of violation of telecommunications business and the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in collusion with A, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing against the Defendants is unreasonable because all of the following punishments, which the lower court committed against the Defendants, are too uneased:

- Defendant A: Imprisonment for a period of one year and four months, confiscation - Two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, community service work, confiscation - ten months of imprisonment, confiscation - ten months of probation, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, and 120 hours of community service;

B. Defendant A, C, or D1’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A) Defendant A was aware of the game item upon the request of D to introduce or request the person handling the game item.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a joint principal offender D and C and convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the defendant was introduced into K, and did not directly participate in the crime of fraud using the computer, etc. of this case, but aided and abetted it.

B) Nos. 56 through 60 of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office’ Office, which was seized by Defendant A in 2015, was not “goods provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act” or “goods produced or acquired by a criminal act”, and, in particular, mobile phones (LG) and Nomt North Korea (T&T) do not have any relation to a criminal act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine of confiscation.

2) The above-mentioned sentence committed by the lower court against Defendant A, C, and D regarding the unfair sentencing of Defendant A, C, and D is too excessive.