The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, Defendant B, and C, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B1 are not the chief officer. Defendant A is not the chief officer.

Defendant

B did not manage the borrowed account, not the team leader, and did not disguise the acquisition of criminal proceeds.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2) The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and one year of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant E (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of social service) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

(c)

The punishment of the judgment of the court below by the public prosecutor (defendant A: two years of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; two years of suspended execution; two years of imprisonment; community service work for the defendant D; and one hundred and sixty hours of work; ten months of suspended execution; two years of suspended execution; and one hundred and sixty hours of work) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination ex officio (as to Defendant C), prior to the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds for appeal against Defendant C, Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “the punishment of an accessory offender shall be mitigated to less than that of the principal offender” is determined as the grounds for necessary mitigation of punishment.

In doing so, the judgment of the court below is excessive, and the punishment is imposed by omitting aiding and abetting the defendant C while recognizing the crime of aiding and abetting the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment, etc. of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds. In this regard, the part on the defendant C among the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to Defendant A and B’s assertion of mistake, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts pointed out by Defendant A and B.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(1) Defendant A shall be the local office of China at the prosecution.