Part 1 excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation order among the parts against Defendant A, C, and D of the original adjudication decision.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the above Defendant’s partial statement, A’s statement, Kakao dialogue content, etc., the above Defendant’s access to A to obtain cash, not a portable phone, can be recognized at the time.

Therefore, although the above defendant could sufficiently be recognized that he participated in the phishing crime, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A’s sentence (a year of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the first instance court on the above Defendant is too unreasonable (the above Defendant explicitly withdraws his assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date).

Defendant

C and D Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants (the first sentence: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months for Defendant C, imprisonment of 1 year and 2 years for Defendant D, and imprisonment of 4 months for each case) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio judgment (as to Defendant C and D), prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the above Defendants.

A. This court decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and each of the offenses against the above Defendants is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment for which aggravated concurrent offenses have been imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the above Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be reversed.

B. Meanwhile, in the first instance trial, the Prosecutor’s “Embezzlement” among the names of the crimes against the above Defendants as “Fraud”; “Articles 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act” in the applicable legal provisions as “Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act”; and Article 7(a), (8), (9), and (2) of the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance trial among the facts charged in the judgment of the lower court, as follows.