The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, D, and E (In both respect of Defendants A and B), the lower court sentenced the said Defendants to the punishment (one year of suspended sentence of one year, three months, and one year, and one year, and one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment for each of the above Defendants D and E) (in both cases, one year, and one year, and one year, and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable. 2) Although Defendant B (in fact, unjust sentencing, and one year, one year, and one year), Defendant A’s statement on the background, method, etc. jointly committed the crimes under Defendant B, B, and private electronic records, etc., was specifically and consistent and consistent, the lower court rejected the part that Defendant A’s statement was jointly committed on January 2014 among Defendant A’s statements without reasonable grounds, and found Defendant B guilty of this part of the charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unhued and unfair.

3) Even though Defendant C (Mumo-Mumo-Mumo-Mumo-Mumo-Mumo-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-My-Mum-Mum-Mum-Mum-M

2) Defendant B (In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and Defendant B, in collusion with Defendant A and C, did not open a prepaid phone, thereby recognizing the liability for the crime of exercising private electromagnetic records, etc. from January 4, 2014.