All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Defendant A asserts that the summary of the grounds for appeal is not used for the instant crime, and that the single unit of Samsungphone (S3) seized Samsungphone (Tallon No. 2013Modle District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2013Modle No. 2965, hereinafter “instant smartphone”) is not subject to confiscation.

(Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts). The Prosecutor asserts that the punishment of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for six months for a crime before and after the final judgment rendered on February 7, 2013 as indicated in the lower judgment; imprisonment for six months for a crime after the final judgment rendered on June 20, 2013; fine for a crime before and after the final judgment rendered on June 20, 2013; fine for a crime before and after the final judgment rendered on June 20, 2013; and that the Defendant A’s assertion that it is improper for the Prosecutor to be too unjustifiable; and that the Defendant

(Public Prosecutor and Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing) 2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, Defendant A deceiving several victims, such as CO, etc., as if galgal lusium sold S3 smartphones, and acquired money. In particular, Defendant A sent photographs (Evidence No. 358 of the Evidence No. 2013da6199) taken the instant smartphones to the victim DI, which verified the condition of the said victim’s photograph, and determined to purchase and remitted the sales proceeds to the account designated by Defendant A. As such, the instant smartphone was deemed to be a thing provided or intended to be provided for the Defendant A’s deception. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant A is without merit.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing by the public prosecutor and the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendants are against themselves in the confession of all crimes, which resulted in the Defendants’ economic difficulties, and the crimes committed before each final judgment in the original judgment, are subject to the case where the above previous convictions are judged together with the crimes.