Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the case against the defendant A and B (excluding the part of the order for compensation by the original judgment) is all.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant A, Defendant A, according to the direction of Defendant B, did not recognize that the act, such as delivery of a e-mail card and cash withdrawal, is related to the scaming crime. As such, there was no intention to commit a crime of fraud and the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Defendants shall not be punished as a joint principal offender for public offering.

B) As to the lower judgment of the first instance court, the Defendants did not have been involved in each of the crimes committed on January 28, 2016 and January 29, 2016 against the victim AR, and the Defendants did not have engaged in the crime except for the crimes committed against the victim D. As to the lower judgment of the second instance.

2) Defendant A is merely an act of ex post facto act of withdrawing the money obtained through deception after the commission of fraud was completed, and there was no functional control over the elements of fraud, and the Defendant cannot be punished as a joint principal offender for conspiracy, on the grounds that there was no functional control over the act.

B. Sentencing 1) The respective sentences of Defendant A and B (the first judgment: the imprisonment of Defendant A; the imprisonment of Defendant B; the imprisonment of 1 year and 4 months; the short term of 1 year and 1 year and 4 months; and the second judgment: the imprisonment of Defendant A; the imprisonment of Defendant B for 6 months; the long term of 8 months and the short term of 6 months) are too unreasonable.

2) Each sentence (Defendant AA: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, suspended execution for 2 years, and the remaining Defendants: the same applies to the above) of the first instance judgment of the prosecutor’s 1 is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant A and B prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority.

In the first instance trial, each of the judgment below against Defendant A and B was combined with each of the appeals cases against Defendant A and B. Since each of the offenses listed in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of the offenses should be sentenced within the term of punishment, which is subject to aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B (excluding the part of the compensation order for the first instance judgment) shall be maintained.