All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake in the facts in the instant facts charged, as to the Defendants’ violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Damage, the fraud by using computers, etc., and the aiding and abetting the use of computers, etc. against Defendant B, the Defendants did not know that the withdrawn money was transferred to the crime of the so-called “sleding” only by either a non-financial fund or game machine going beyond China and that the said money was transferred to China. There was no fact that the Defendants conspired to commit fraud with G, etc., or aiding and abetting the Defendants by recognizing the crime of fraud by using computers, etc.

However, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion and found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Of the facts charged in the instant case alleged by the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant B’s act of withdrawing money from his own account as to Defendant B’s violation of the Special Act on the Prevention of Damage to Telecommunications Finance and the Refund of Damage, and the fraud by using computers, etc.

Even if the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. was committed, it is merely a cooperation in the ex post facto actions after the occurrence of a crime of fraud by using computers, etc., and it is not a crime of fraud by using computers, etc.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, as to aiding and abetting Defendant B’s fraud by using a computer, etc., Defendant A did not constitute a crime of fraud, such as computer, and Defendant B did not withdraw money.

Even if the act of aiding and abetting the use of computer, etc. constitutes aiding and abetting after the completion of the crime, it is not established.

(c)

The court below's improper assertion of sentencing by the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and Defendant B: