beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (the Defendants’ violation of the Telecommunications Business Act due to attempted fraud and change of telephone number) was aware of the fact that the Defendants knew of VoIP Gawawa (hereinafter “Roywa”) as a device that simply helps South Korea and Vietnam to gather international currencies, and did not recognize that their telephone numbers were changed in the course of operation or that their actions were part of the crimes of Bohishing.
Therefore, the Defendants did not agree to commit each of the crimes with the employees of the phishing and phishing, and there was no intention or purpose for attempted fraud and the change of the telephone number for the purpose of deception.
2) The sentence of the lower court (one and half years of imprisonment by each of the Defendants, and confiscation) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.
Judgment
A. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment, but the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in its judgment after specifically explaining the grounds for appeal in “the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion and judgment.” In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court, the Defendants were not aware of all the details and methods of the Defendants’ overall act of singing that the Defendants were planned and organized by the employees of singing employees.
Even if their actions constitute part of the crime of Bosing fraud, and even if they do not recognize the fact that the telephone number of the singing staff of the singing staff in the process is changed by the singer, they can be recognized as participating in each crime, so the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is erroneous and it is so decided.