Of the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant A and B and the second judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and four months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the judgment of the first instance court) is true that Defendant B received the means of access to scam from Defendant C as stated in the instant facts charged. However, this merely constitutes an internal delivery among the accomplices of the fraud crime, and thus does not constitute the acquisition of the means of access under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. (2) The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant B (the first instance court: imprisonment with labor for a year and four months, and the second instance court: imprisonment with labor for a period of eight months) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts does not have engaged in the crime of fraud and Electronic Financial Transactions Act in collusion with A, B, etc., as stated in the instant facts charged. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant C (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A and B

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination, Defendant A and B filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of all the above appeal cases. Each of the above offenses against the above Defendants is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence should be imposed within the scope of one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part on Defendant A and B among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained any longer.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant B’s assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, at least two co-principals under Article 30 of the Criminal Act are jointly co-principals.