All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (i.e., Defendant A introduced the “J” to Defendant B, notified Defendant A of the basic method of receiving the passbook, and the contact between the “J” and the Defendant B was not properly contacted and delivered to Defendant B upon the request of the “J”. As such, Defendant A is not a joint principal offender of the instant crime, but a joint principal offender of the instant crime.

Shebly, the court below found Defendant A as a co-principal in regard to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the receipt of the O passbook and the check card among the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the receipt of the passbook in I and the check card, it cannot be readily concluded that the recipient did not intend to transfer the means of access solely on the ground that he/she provided the means of access for the purpose of lending. The Defendants had the intent to acquire the means of access, and thus,

D. As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the receipt of passbook H’s passbook and the physical card, the Defendants had the intent to acquire the means of access, and thus, the Defendants are guilty of this part of the facts charged irrespective of the details of the issuance of the means of access

Abstract Defendant C was aware of Defendant B’s criminal act and accompanied with Defendant B, and thus functional control is recognized.

x) Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A and I not guilty of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the receipt of H and I bankbooks and the check card, among the charges against Defendant A and B, and the charges against Defendant C, by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

C. Defendant A alleged unfair sentencing by Defendant A and the prosecutor’s assertion that the sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and probation) of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is unfair.