Defendant

A and C shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and by imprisonment for ten months, respectively.

A. As to the fraud of the guilty portion of the judgment of the first instance court on the facts-misunderstanding (defendant A and B) 1, the court below convicted the Defendants of this part of the charges even though they did not have any awareness that they conspired to commit or participate in the commission of the phishing fraud, although they merely responded to the proposal that they would deliver the card from the person in a false name-oriented manner while seeking a high-profit information letter-how, and did not deliver the card from the person in a false name. The court below erred in the misapprehension of this part of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part not guilty (the violation of the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions except for the crime of paragraph (3) in the judgment of the court below against the Defendants) is not established, and the relation between the Defendants A, B, and C is not established. If the Defendants transferred access media ownership or disposal right based on their intent as stated in this part of the facts charged, the crime of transferring access media was established, and the crime of violating the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions. However, the court below acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on transfer of access media under the Act on Electronic Financial Transactions, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months and four months, confiscation (the first instance judgment), four months (the second instance judgment), Defendant B: imprisonment for one year and four months, and imprisonment for six months, Defendant C: imprisonment for two years and four months, and confiscation) imposed by the original court. The confiscation is too heavy or is too heavy.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before examining the Defendants’ common (the judgment of the court below 1) (1) changes in indictment (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act), Defendant B and C’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal principles, the prosecutor shall ex officio examine this part of the facts charged in the first instance trial, and the applicable legal provision.