Defendant

The appeal filed by A and the prosecutor shall be dismissed respectively.

The part concerning Defendant B and C in each judgment of the court below is respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant A’s decision on the original adjudication (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant B’s decision on the original adjudication (one year imprisonment) and the punishment of the second adjudication on the original adjudication (eight months imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Defendant C’s misunderstanding of fact is a false statement that Defendant A and B would receive money from bad credit holders and withdraw 10% of the money, and the said Defendants informed the Defendant C’s account and then withdrawn money from the said account. Defendant A, B, or the facts charged did not constitute a conspiracy to commit the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the defendant C is in collusion with the defendant A, B, and the non-persons under his name.

In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the judgment of the court below was erroneous by misapprehending the facts.

2) The punishment of the first and second decisions on the sentencing of the sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months) and the sentence of the second decisions on the sentencing of the sentencing (the imprisonment of six months) are too unreasonable.

(d)

The first original adjudication decision of the prosecutor (two years of imprisonment for Defendant A, one year of imprisonment for Defendant B, and eight months of imprisonment for Defendant C) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the court below of first instance against each of the instant offenses are recognized and against all of the instant offenses.

In addition, without knowledge of the entire structure of the crime of this case, Defendant A is merely a subordinate member under the direction of the principal offender, and the circumstances where the profit gained from the crime of this case appears to be less than the amount of damage, etc. are favorable to Defendant A.

However, due to the nature of the crime of this case, which constitutes the so-called “Sishing” crime, the crime is very likely to cause serious harm not only to the victim, but also to our society as a whole, and is causing damage to an unspecified number of victims in a planned and systematic manner.