The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case against the defendant B and the part against the defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, and C’s sentence (Defendant A, B: Imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of two years, a short term of one year, and Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years, two years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Article 2019Da3016 of the criminal facts of the case) Defendant D merely received money from Defendant C to conduct a money exchange business, and Defendant D did not know that the said money was the fraud of the crime of Bophishing, and there was no fact that he conspiredd with K and other employees of Bophishing and the above crime. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant D of the public prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination 1) Defendant B, as a CP student, was sentenced to an irregular term of punishment for falling under “juvenile” as stipulated in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the lower judgment, but it is apparent that Defendant B no longer fell under the juvenile under the age of 19 years, and thus, the part of the Defendant’s case among the lower judgment that sentenced Defendant B to the foregoing an irregular term of punishment was no longer maintained. 2) In the event that the Defendant acquired property by means of the forged official document and acquired property, the crime of uttering of forged official document and the crime of fraud are substantive concurrent relations.

Nevertheless, on June 27, 2019, the lower court erred in viewing that the crime of uttering of forged public document and the crime of uttering of forged public document, which acquired KRW 83 million from the victim AI, by presenting a copy of the civil petition document under the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission that Defendant B forged on June 21, 2019, and that the crime of uttering of forged public document and the crime of fraud, which acquired KRW 84 million from the victim AG by presenting a copy of the civil petition document under the name of the Chairperson of the Financial Services Commission, were in each commercial competition relationship. As such, the part of the lower judgment on Defendant B and the part on Defendant C of the lower judgment were no longer maintained.

3..