All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal - misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles - Defendant A1) created a virtual currency account under the name of the Defendant at the request of G, which was made by G to use the virtual currency account under the name of the Defendant, and withdrawn money transferred to the K bank account under the name of the Defendant, and remitted the money to other persons, and the commission was received. However, there was no fact that the crime of G was not known at all, and there was no fact that the Defendant conspired to engage in singing or licensing in advance with G, etc.; 2) While the Defendant was aware of the crime of G, etc., he assisted the above.

This is a mere aiding and abetting.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the joint principal offender’s liability as to the fraud by using computers, etc. among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in finding facts or understanding the legal principles as to joint principal offender. However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to unjust sentencing - the court below’s punishment against the Defendants (the defendant A: 3 years of imprisonment, and Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for up to

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below’s judgment that convicted Defendant A of the charge of fraud by using computers, etc. among the facts charged against the Defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to co-principal.

1. The Defendant made the following statements at an investigative agency, and in full view of these statements, the Defendant was unaware of whether the Defendant committed fraud, including G, in any way in which the total liability for the Bosing crime was specifically established.

Even if G et al. are involved in the crime of licensing or licensing, it is sufficiently aware that G et al. is involved in such crime.