The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. After the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal, Defendant A’s defense counsel filed by Defendant A after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal is examined only to the extent it supplements the grounds of appeal filed within a legitimate deadline.

Defendant

A is not a Korean responsibility responsible for the withdrawal, remittance, or solicitation of passbooks, of the telephone financial fraud organization, but there is no fact that he led the crime of this case or led the execution thereof. Therefore, the sentence of the court below against the above defendant (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the developments leading up to, and degree of participation in, Defendant B (unfair punishment) in, the instant crime, and the current situation where Defendant B was faced, the sentence of imprisonment (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) by the lower court against the said Defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant E-1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that Defendant E transported the instant presidential passbook and the instant check, but the content and the instant Defendant did not know of the instant crime, and even D who carried out the instant transport service to the said Defendant did not make any mention about the content thereof. As such, the said Defendant did not have intention to commit a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and thus, was acquitted, and is not guilty, and there is no criminal liability as a joint principal offender for fraud. 2) In light of the circumstances and current circumstances leading up to the instant crime by Defendant E of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one year of probation) against the said Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A instructed Defendant B, Co-Defendant C, etc. to receive the check from Co-Defendant D, etc., the head of the lower court’s solicitation book.