Part concerning Defendant B, C, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and two months, and Defendant C.

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (1) In misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, subparagraphs 2 and 4, which were seized around April 29, 2014 at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office, did not fall under the confiscation requirements, but the lower court also confiscated this part. (2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too heavy.

C. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the act of forging private documents, fraud, uttering of a falsified investigation document, and uttering of forged official document) are limited to the fact that the Defendant purchased a customer database (DB) and a copy of his identification card at the direction of the J and delivered them to the J, and there is no fact that the Defendant prepared an application for joining a mobile phone in collusion with other accomplices and did not participate in the opening of a mobile phone. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a joint principal offender of fraud, as well as a paper offender of fraud, fabrication of private documents, uttering of a falsified investigation document, uttering of a falsified official document, uttering of a forged official document, and fraud. 2) The sentence of the lower court (in sum

Although the public prosecutor (the part on the defendant C and D) on the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry of the defendant C and D, the court below omitted the criminal proceeds.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court: (a) applied Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act to the part of Defendant B’s assertion; and (b) forfeited all evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (2014Dadan2750 Incident No. 293) confiscated from the Defendant around April 29, 2014; (c) however, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was a mobile phone No. 11 (Evidence No. 2) and No. 2 (Evidence No. 4) out of the above seized articles provided or intended to provide for the instant criminal act; (d) the lower judgment that entirely forfeited became no longer available. This part of the Defendant’s assertion has merit).