The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

No. 14 of the seized evidence from Defendant A,

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are limited to the business of purchasing a passbook from Defendant B and transferring it to G, and did not participate in the telephone financial fraud crime. However, the lower court found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of all the sentencing sentencing conditions of this case, in light of the overall sentencing factors of this case, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant B, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

C. Regarding the portion of acquittal in the judgment of the court below regarding the mistake of facts, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendants conspired to recognize the fact that the defendant acquired the Nonghyup Card from AT and thus, the defendant was transferred the possession of the means of access. However, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant A cannot be deemed to have been transferred the possession of the means of access from the defendant B. In this regard, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the overall sentencing sentencing sentencing conditions of the case of unfair sentencing,

2. Determination

A. Determination 1) The prosecutor’s application for permission to change the indictment was made in the first instance trial and the prosecutor applied for permission to change the indictment as stated in Paragraph 3 (2) below. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

2) On April 8, 2013, Defendant B posted a notice on the revised charge of charge (in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, Defendant B posted an article to sell an online website “Guidebook” to the website.