The part of the judgment below against the Defendants except the acquittal part of the judgment below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, B, and E shall be acquitted, respectively.

1. Of the facts charged against Defendant D, the lower court acquitted Defendant D on the charge of violating the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection Act”) due to obscene materials other than child and juvenile pornography, and only Defendant D filed an appeal against Defendant D’s conviction.

Therefore, since the court below's decision of acquittal was separated and finalized as it is, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below against the defendants.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A and B merely leased the means of electronic financial transactions under the name of Defendant B by receiving the means of access from Defendant B upon the R request, and they did not have been transferred to R, but otherwise, Defendant A and B asserted that there was an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Defendant A and B of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 6 million, and a fine of KRW 4 million) declared by the court below are excessively unreasonable.

B. According to the provisions of Article 361-2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act for ex officio determination, where a defense counsel is appointed before the notification of the receipt of the trial records, the court of appeals shall also order the defense counsel to receive the notification of the receipt of the trial records. Thus, where a private defense counsel is appointed after the notification of the notification of the receipt of the trial records to the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2010Mo1741, May 13, 201; Supreme Court Order 2010Mo1741, Aug. 25, 1965; Supreme Court Order 65Mo34, Aug. 25, 1965). According to the records, although the defendant D filed an appeal against the lower judgment, the petition of appeal does not contain