The judgment below

Part of conviction against Defendant A and those against Defendant B, C, E, and F shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, E, and F (1) misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles (Defendant E’s defense counsel asserts that the Defendant E’s defense counsel should not be acquitted on the grounds that: (a) Defendant E’s defense counsel by means of the written appeal: (b) the sequence 15 to 18 of the crime sight card frauds; and (c) the remaining sequence excluding the sequence 14 through 17 from among the frauds, such as computers, etc. in the crime sight table (5) at the time, Defendant E does not stay in China; and (d) there was no fact that the conspiracy was written.

However, since the sequence of the above argument is not charged to Defendant E (see, e.g., “Defendant” in paragraphs (2) and (5) of the crime inundation list), the above argument does not lead to any further examination.

Defendant

E only performed the role of telephone counselors at call centers, and did not have publicly recruited to commit the crime of defraudation of physical cards, such as AY, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the charge of fraud of physical cards 14 through 17 in the crime inundation list (2) against the above Defendant.

(2) The defendant F who was sentenced by the court below to the defendant A, B, C, E, and F: the defendant A, B: the defendant A, and B who was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years: the defendant Eul who was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years: the defendant E who was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years: the defendant Eul who was sentenced to imprisonment for a year of one year and six months is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the facts (as to Defendant A’s fraud), the so-called large account and its access media are essential in committing a telephone financial fraud crime. As such, Defendant A, who served as a telephone counselor, was also aware of and acceptable for the crime of defraudation of the physical card, as Defendant A who also served as a telephone counselor.

In addition, even if the statement of some accomplices is based, it can be inferred that the above defendant was aware of the method of raising large accounts and physical cards, and the characteristics of the telephone financing fraud crime that is systematically conducted by sharing the roles of each person in recognizing the joint principal of the public offering.