Defendant

R Imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year with prison labor for Defendant A.

(b).

A. Defendant R1) The misapprehension of the legal principle is only an aiding and abetting a crime of fraud as indicated in the judgment of the first and third court, and does not constitute a co-principal. (2) The sentence (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and the third instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed on the Defendants (the second instance court: the imprisonment of 10 months (the imprisonment of 10 years), the third instance court: the imprisonment of 8 months (the imprisonment of 2 years), the imprisonment of 10 months (the imprisonment of 2 years), and the community service work for 80 hours) of the prosecutor (the imprisonment of 10 years (the imprisonment of 2 years), and the imprisonment of 10 months) are deemed to be too unffortu

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on Defendant R and Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal.

Defendant

R and prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and the court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

Each crime of the lower judgment against the Defendants is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment imposed.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, the defendant R's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is still included in the subject of the judgment of the court. Therefore, this is examined below.

3. As to the Defendant R’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same purport as the above assertion. The lower court determined that Defendant R was a co-principal of the above crime in light of the degree and role of Defendant R’s participation in the crime even though it was aware that Defendant R was a phishing crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment by closely comparing the relevant legal principles and the records of this case, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Defendant

R’s assertion of this part is without merit.

4. The judgment of the court below on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and thus, the defendant R and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.