The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, and for two years and six months, respectively.

evidence of seizure.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) each of the lower courts’ respective punishments (the three years of imprisonment and confiscation, two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) asserted that the Defendants are too unreasonable and unfair; (b) on the other hand, the prosecutor appealeds each of them by asserting that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the judgment of the Defendants and the Prosecutor on the grounds for appeal.

In the trial court, the prosecutor applied for the amendment to Bill of Indictment with the content of changing the facts charged as stated in the "a summary of the facts of crime and evidence". Since the subject of the trial was changed by this court's permission, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[Dao-written judgment] The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are as follows. Except where "11 copies of all corporate registration certificates" are added to the last summary of the evidence of the court below, the facts constituting an offense and the summary of the evidence are as stated in each corresponding column of the court below. Thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. The Defendants established a floating corporation, opened the Internet telephone terminal and line through the Internet telephone terminal and line using the corporation’s business registration certificate, and conspired to supply the phone to be used for the commission of the crime at the organization of Bosing Bara located outside the Philippines.

According to the above public offering, Defendant A plays a general role in managing the above Internet telephone supply policies, and Defendant B is above.