A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and three months.

Seized evidence 1, 2, 11.

A. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts: The part not guilty in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 is the same as the part not guilty in the judgment of the court of first instance and second, and the reasons for appeal are the same.

In the case of crimes in which the defendant did not directly withdraw the money by fraud and transferred the account or withdrawn other collection measures, the defendant's functional control is recognized, so a joint principal offender is established.

B. Because it is a common principal offender to recognize the functional control over the whole person who has shared some of the acts of a single crime and impose the responsibility for the whole, it is inconsistent with the logic to impose the responsibility only for part of a single crime.

2) The punishment of the lower court’s respective sentences of 1 and 2 (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation, and second instance: one year and one year of imprisonment) are too unfluent and unfair.

B. Defendants 1 and 2’s each sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to jointly examine the two appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second judgment against the defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles or factual errors

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court’s judgment Nos. 1 and 2 and 1 and 2 on each of the facts charged in the instant case, for which the Defendant did not directly participate in the cash withdrawal scheme, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone serves the functional role of the Defendant by sharing the elements of the Defendant’s action or by inherent contribution.