The judgment below

Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the part of conviction against Defendant A and the victim L among the facts charged against Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the fraud of the victim AE, fraud listed in the attached Table 1 through 8 and fraud by computer use list 1 through 8, each fraud of victim AI and AV, and fraud by using a computer against the victim AY), Defendant A committed an act under paragraph (4) of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below, such as introducing R to R itself his own private village X and soliciting a large passbook used for scam from May 21, 2012 to May 25, 2012, but the court below erred in the fact that there was no other crime of receiving money by fraud in collusion with R, etc. during the other period. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (3 years and 6 months) of the court below was too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of each computer user fraud listed in [Attachment 3] 1 and 2, and the point of each fraud listed in [Attachment 3] Defendant D did not have conspired with other telephone financial fraud offenders, and even though he did not know that the money he exchanged and remitted was the fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months) with an unfair sentencing sentence is too unreasonable.

C. A prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (the fraud against Defendant A and Defendant B’s victim L), even though the facts of the fraud against Defendant A and Defendant B were sufficiently recognized, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (one hundred months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and probation) on the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

2. Determination

A. Joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts are established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements of criminal administration through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the common intent. The elements of the conspiracy are the elements of the crime.