A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and aiding and abetting the fraud, although it could be found that the Defendant was guilty of committing each of the offenses in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and aiding and abetting the fraud, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s Sentencing 1) each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment; Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months; and Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six years) is too unreasonable.

2) Each sentence against the Defendants of the lower court by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

(The part of the lower judgment’s acquittal as to embezzlement in the facts charged in the case of Goju District Court 2017 High Order 861 was finalized as is by the prosecutor without filing an appeal).

2. Determination

A. 1) Unless there are exceptional cases where maintaining the first deliberation decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is deemed remarkably unfair, the appellate court may not arbitrarily reverse the first deliberation decision on the ground that the first deliberation decision on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). 2) The lower court based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone by taking account of the following circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

For the reason that it cannot be easily determined, not guilty was pronounced.

In light of the above legal principles, D'a witness AH and L's statements in the circumstances legitimately shown by the court below are shared by Defendant C's reasons and roles.