Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. The sentencing of Defendant A (see, e.g., two years of imprisonment, and a total list of seized articles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005 pages 2005 of the investigation records No. 17818 of 2013) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant M 1) misunderstanding of facts was delivered by Defendant A with a cell phone opening document and delivered KRW 500,000 among the subsidies to be received from each communication company, etc., to Defendant A, and there was no fact that Defendant A opened a cell phone between Defendant A and Defendant A and conspired to divide the profits from disposing of a cell phone and the profits from opening a cell phone, such as subsidies of the communication company, into half of the profits from disposing of the cell phone by way of exporting the cell phone overseas through stolen goods business operators, as stated in the judgment of the court below. 2) The sentencing of the second court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) In interpreting misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to “serious crimes” under Article 2 subparag. 1(m) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the charges by narrowly interpreting “cases falling under simple or universal crimes” in violation of the legislative intent and purpose of the above Act without any grounds, without any grounds, by interpreting the above “value” as limited to “cases falling under simple or universal crimes.” 2) The lower court’s sentencing (2) the sentencing of the Defendants of unfair sentencing (2 years of imprisonment and seizure; 2 years of suspended sentence and seizure; 1 year of suspended sentence and seizure; 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year; 2 years of suspended sentence and seizure; Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year; and 1 year and 6 months) and sentencing (2) of the lower court’s sentencing (2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A: Defendant A; 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor); and 1 year and 6 months.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance on the guilty part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance

A. Ex officio determination of Defendant A, M’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are against the Defendants.