Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the defendant's case against the defendant A, the second judgment, and the third judgment, the defendants.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud of Defendant A(1) and the third judgment of the lower court, the fact that Defendant A withdrawn the amount of damage upon receiving orders from the superior staff of the telephone fraud organization. However, in the case of the first judgment, there is a lack of evidence to deem that the amount that Co-Defendant A and Co-Defendant A withdrawal corresponds to the amount of money obtained by deceit as stated in the crime list. In the case of each fraud among the third judgment of the lower judgment, the part of the part of the Defendant A’s participation in the withdrawal is nothing more than part, but it is erroneous in the judgment of the lower court that found Defendant A guilty.

As to each violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the judgment of the third court, the court below found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged even though it was merely a receipt of an instruction from the accomplices in the crime of Bophishing fraud, such as O, with the intent to use the means of access as a lump sum, and it was not a conclusive receipt of the means of access.

(2) In light of the fact that the defendant was not involved in each of the crimes of this case with a conclusive intention that the defendant would withdraw the deception by telephone from the beginning of the unfair sentencing sentence, the punishment of each of the court below (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year, a second instance court: a imprisonment with labor for a period of three months, and a third instance court: a imprisonment with labor for a period of ten months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the degree of Defendant S’s participation, etc., the punishment of the third court (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

C. In light of the fact that the prosecutor (as to the defendantO) committed each of the instant crimes again during the period of suspension of execution for the same crime, etc., the punishment of the court of the third instance (as to the fine of KRW 5 million, confiscation) against the above defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination of Defendant A on the facts constituting an offense in the instant case No. 2013No3927 and cases No. 2013No4921 and No. 5002, which were consolidated in the trial.