1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

evidence of seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In a case where the Defendants, as a means of delivering cash withdrawals or check cards, committed the act identical to the entries in the facts charged, was organized and planned to play a key role in the criminal act of licensing, and there was a functional control over the said criminal act by the joint will.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the Defendants are not aiding and abetting the crime of fraud, but also common principals.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment (two years of suspended execution) and two years of probation, community service work, confiscation, and additional collection) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting fraud) did not constitute the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting fraud, since there was no intention to commit such aiding and abetting and

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor, Defendant B’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Although the appellate court’s determination on the lower court did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of a documentary evidence during the trial process, when it intends to reverse the first instance judgment after re-evaluation of the first instance judgment, there is a reasonable ground to deem that the first instance judgment was clearly erroneous, or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and without such exceptional circumstance, it should not be said that the first instance judgment on the acknowledgement of facts was without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). No objective reason exists that may affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the first instance trial based on the foregoing legal doctrine, and it is deemed that the lower court duly adopted the evidence and the content of the lower court compared with the evidence duly examined.