The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

S8 mobile phones when seized Samsung Tallon.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, Defendant A1 did not play a role in managing the collection of physical cards and the withdrawal of the amount of damage, and Defendant A did not instruct Defendant B to collect the physical cards at H Na, the time and place of collecting the physical cards.

Defendant

A was not involved in the acquisition of each physical card in the name of M andO as stated in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant physical cards”), and in each of the instant physical cards, it was not involved in the acquisition of the instant M, “the instant O physical card” or “the instant O physical card”).

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act) Defendant B merely takes charge of the role of withdrawing cash with the physical check, etc. delivered by H, and Defendant B did not know at all about each of the instant physical check that was collected by H but did not deliver to Defendant B.

As such, Defendant B did not have conspired with J, L, Defendant A, H, and I in succession to acquire each of the instant physical cards.

Each of the instant physical cards is an access medium that H had already taken over and kept in the custody of the said goods before HH was removed from the station of Mapo-gu Office No. 6 of subway 6, and No. 8 of H had been removed. As such, H had committed both crimes by taking over the instant access medium. Accordingly, H thereafter committed each of the instant physical cards.

Even if he did so, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have a joint principal offender for the crime of soliciting the acquisition of each of the instant postal cards.

B. The punishment of Defendant B, who is only the role of the withdrawal book, as a joint principal offender of each of the instant physical cards acquisition of the instant case, is excessively expanding and interpreting penal laws and regulations, thereby also violating the principle of statutory punishment.

2) The lower court’s punishment (a year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) that is unfair in sentencing.