A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above forms of the lower court’s judgment is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The reasoning of the appeal of this case by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is as follows: (a) the Defendants reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth; (b) the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment; and (c) the Defendants conspired with other accomplices in China to commit the instant crime; and (d) the Defendants came to commit the instant crime in collusion with other accomplices in China; (b) the Defendants actively participated in the instant crime as a part of withdrawing cash; (c) the Defendants actively participated in the instant crime; and (d) other unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime; and (e) circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendants’ punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, since both the defendants and the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act is clear that "Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act" is a clerical error in Article 48 (1) 1 and 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, it shall be corrected pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.