The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 6 shall be confiscated.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant was merely involved in the instant crime with C’s instructions from around July 2016; and (b) the Defendant committed a crime in collusion with C, etc. as to each of the following facts: (c) the fact that each of the public electronic records listed in attached Table 1, 29 to 35, such as false and false electronic records; (d) the fact that each of the public electronic records listed in the attached Table 1, 29 to 35, and the event, such as false and false recorded electronic records, such as each public electronic records listed in the list of offenses (hereinafter referred to as “non- recorded and event, such as public electronic records, etc., on 29 occasions”); and (e) the fact that each of the electronic financial transactions of the attached Table 2, 1, and 145, in a lump sum, violated the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (hereinafter referred to as “each of the said marks”), in collusion with C, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the above facts charged is erroneous by mistake.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

In the indictment submitted by the prosecutor to determine the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the indictment is written to the effect that “the Defendant recorded false facts in the commercial register, which is an electronic record of the same electronic record as the original copy of the process deed, on 33 occasions from May 25, 2016 to May 15, 2017,” but the indictment is written to the effect that “the Defendant, from May 25, 2016 to May 21, 2017, recorded false facts on 33 occasions, such as electronic records, etc.” in the instant indictment, however, in light of the period of the crime, it is obvious that “within 33 times a year, such as No. 21-52” in the indictment is a clerical error, and the prosecutor corrected it from the trial at the same time to “within 32 times a year, such as 29-60”, based on the corrected facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is in collusion with C, etc.