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 three months.

evidence of seizure.

1. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, confiscation) against the Defendants in summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A, with knowledge of the specific method or content of the instant crime, participated in the instant crime.

In consideration of the contents of the criminal act that the above defendant directly performed, such as the opening of the head of the Tong, the registration of the business operator, the opening of the card merchant, the receipt and delivery of the card approval terminal, and the withdrawal and delivery of the proceeds of the crime, the degree of participation in the criminal act is not

In fact, 18% of the criminal proceeds of this case were distributed, and the criminal proceeds of this case finally acquired by the above defendant is not less than 4.9 million won.

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial.

In full view of the above circumstances, the method of criminal acts, etc., even when considering the circumstances that the above defendant was involved in the crime according to the defendant B's proposal, and that the defendant was engaged in the above specific act under the defendant B's instruction, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A had a leading role in the instant crime, such as suggesting Defendant A to commit the instant crime, directly forging a credit card with a copy of the card, and making a payment with a forged credit card, and signing on the sales slip.

The number of forged credit cards reaches 63,00 won, and 124,000 won and 3,80,000 won, which have been conducted or attempted to make a payment by using forged credit cards.

There is a history of being punished twice as a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and there is also a history of being sentenced to the suspension of indictment for a violation of the Act on the Electronic Financial Transactions.

In full view of the above circumstances, the sentence of sentence to the above defendant is inevitable.

However, after the judgment of the court below was rendered, the amount of damage.