The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. Defendant A, C, and D’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, Defendant C, and D: each one year and four months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts - Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) merely delivered his cell phone and OTP card to G on the grounds that it is necessary for G to receive money from its own mobile phone and OTP card without knowing the fact that his account was used for the scaming crime, and there was no fact that there was a collusion with the employees of Boscaming, such as F, etc., about the facts charged, with Defendant C’s cell phone and OTP card and money exchange. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of this case in determining the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant B: (i) Defendant C consistently stated in the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of original trial that Defendant B received an order from Defendant B’s mobile phone, OTP card, and money exchange; and (ii) Defendant C’s statement is not consistent with Defendant B’s unfavorable statement, such as: (i) Defendant C’s instructions from the court of original instance to “on the face of money exchange and transaction with money exchange with money exchange with money exchange with money exchange with money exchange with money exchange with money exchange with Defendant B” was made by F and statement to the effect that it was not made by Defendant B; and (iii) Defendant C’s statement from the investigative agency to the purport that “I do not have to make a statement to a male person on the face of money exchange with money, but it appears that the said person is not the Defendant A; and (iv) Defendant C’s statement appears to have no obvious reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the Defendant B.

Therefore, as stated in the facts charged by Defendant B, Defendant B.