All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine was convicted of the lower court’s judgment on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants were convicted of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act: (b) the violation of the Act on Realization of Public Records, etc.; (c) the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; and (d) the said judgment became final and conclusive.

Since the above crimes established against the Defendants and the crime of re-making the electronic records of this case, the crime of gambling such as false recorded electronic records, and the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act are related to each other, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered against the Defendants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes.

Even if the above domestic crime is not a single crime, it is likely that the prosecutor's indictment of two cases which are less likely to be abused in the right of prosecution by separating them from the same opportunity.

2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts

Although it is judged, there is no evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (two years of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same as the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds that each of the instant crimes and each of the instant judgments finalized are concurrent crimes, on the grounds that the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act due to the false entry in the public electronic records, etc., the event such as the false entry, the use of electronic records, etc., and the transfer of access media is separately established by the public electronic records, the object of the relevant

In this regard, the judgment of the court below on the number of crimes is justified, and the defendants' above assertion is justified.