The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding the part which rejected an application for compensation, and the compensation order among the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant merely thought that she was engaged in a money change business and received money from the victims, and did not intend to obtain money from her employees and did not intend to do so with her employees and her employees.

Therefore, each of the charges against the defendant is not guilty because all of the charges are not proven.

However, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles since the court below found the defendant guilty.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, this Court tried by examining each appeal case against the judgment of the court below jointly. Each of the offenses committed by the judgment of the court below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be exempt from all reversal.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the judgment of the court is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine of the Defendant is denied to the effect that, with respect to each crime committed by the lower judgment, he/she conspireds with the employees of Boishing, and did not have any intention to commit fraud.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower judgment, the Defendant was in possession of nine copies of false documents under the name of the Chairperson at the time of arrest, ② presented the victims with the above false documents delivered through e-mail, and signed them. ③ The Defendant received 2% of the cash received from the victims as allowances.