A. Defendants A and misunderstanding of the legal principles) Defendant A: The Defendant was aware that he/she used another person’s passbook due to tax issues without recognizing the fact that he/she was involved in the criminal conduct of licensing.

B) Defendant B and C did not know that the Defendants were committing the instant crime and acted in accordance with the instructions of the co-defendant A, and thus, the Defendants did not intend to commit the instant crime, and there was a functional control over the instant crime.

As it is impossible to do so, it is not a common principal but a aiding offender.

2) The sentencing of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, confiscation, Defendant B: Imprisonment for a year and two months, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and one year and two months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A (as to Defendant A) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendants’ assertion of mistake as to the facts by the Defendants is identical to the grounds for appeal under this part of this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion and its decision in detail under the title “Determination as to the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion”.

In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as

In particular, Defendant B and C merely asserted that they had access to the Defendant A, but they were aware of the fact that they had been in charge of monitoring a person who withdraws from the deposit; ② Defendant B and Defendant C had been living in Korea around 2012 and around 2010 and resided in Korea; thus, Defendant C was aware of the fact that the phishing crime becomes a social problem.

On the other hand, since the above dwelling period is part-time, the higher price of about KRW 200,00 is about KRW 200,000 compared to the simple act of surveillance.