The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment against the Defendants shall be two years of imprisonment.

Seized evidence 3 through 6, 8.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding (Defendant A) Defendant A did not intend to make a conspiracy to commit the overall crime, such as “F”, “G”, “H”, and the instant smartphone loan fraud, etc., or there was no conspiracy to commit a crime or to commit a division of roles. However, even though Defendant A did only play the role of an intermediate communication device that delivered smartphones, passbooks, etc. through Kwikset news articles, the lower court convicted Defendant A by misapprehending the fact that Defendant A conspiredd with the above good offices or solicitation policies.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendants’ grounds for appeal ex officio, the public prosecutor received approximately 113,929,348 won in total from May 18, 2012 to October 30 of the same month from the date of the trial, and the public prosecutor received approximately 113,929,348 won from the above 175-month to the above 300,000 won by obtaining the above 150,000 won “the above 150,000 won bank account” from the above 1,50,000 won by obtaining the above 1,50,000 won “the above 1,50,000 won bank account” from the above 1,50,000 won from the above 1,50,000 won account to the victims of the crime by obtaining the above 1,50,000 won “the above 1,50,000 won bank account” and receiving the above 1,500,00,0,00.