Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, the defendant.

A. Defendant A (1) In addition to the fact that Defendant A had known that the act of cash withdrawal in the instant case was related to singing, Defendant A conspired with him to commit the crime of singing, and there is no fact that Defendant A had known that there was a H, recruitment, implementation, and receipt, etc.

In addition, since Defendant A’s act of cash withdrawal was committed after the commencement of the crime of Bosing fraud, it cannot be punished as a crime of fraud.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts: (2) After Defendant B informed the National Police Agency of the act of cash withdrawal, Defendant B did not have an intention of fraud on the ground that the act of cash withdrawal was related to Bosing; and (3) after Defendant B informed the National Police Agency of the act of cash withdrawal, Defendant B did not have an intention of fraud.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by Defendant A

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, Defendant A used the name of Defendant B, F, G as one grouped with H, J, BE, K, L, etc., and confirmed whether it was possible to use the cash card in the name of another person by spophone, and repeated the act of withdrawing cash with the cash card available in the cash automatic machine, and Defendant A paid 1% of the cash withdrawn in return for the said act of withdrawal of cash. Defendant A thought that this case’s act of withdrawal of cash in the investigative agency was a withdrawal of funds that were not normal, and it is doubtful that Defendant A was a crime of cash.