All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor to mislead the misunderstanding of the facts (the point of aiding and abetting Defendant A’s fraud), the fact that Defendant A made a so-called limited liability company H and limited liability company V, and delivered corporate seal certificates, corporate card cards, and other relevant documents to the so-called phishing organization, thereby aiding and abetting the commission of fraud by the so-called phishing organization.

2) The sentence of the lower court (as to the Defendants, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, 3 years of probation, 2 years of probation observation, community service work, 160 hours of imprisonment, 10 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 3 months of imprisonment, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 3 years of probation, 2 years of probation) is unfair as it is too unfasible.

2. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, and in particular, the Defendant’s organization of Bosishing, to which the principal offender for the crime of aiding and abetting fraud belongs, and the organization to which the principal principal offender for the crime of aiding and abetting fraud belongs, is the same.

There is no evidence to view that there was no evidence, and the Defendant already committed a crime of aiding and abetting fraud on September 4, 2016, and that the account used for the crime was the name of the old-age corporation that the Defendant transferred to G, etc. in this case, and the Defendant was aware or predicted of each fraud of this case.

Examining the lower judgment in light of the circumstances such as that it cannot be readily concluded, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime of aiding and abetting the fraud among the instant charges.

3. The lower court decided on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing against the Defendants, taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants, and favorable to each of the following factors: (a) three years of probation; (b) two years of probation observation; (c) one year and six months of community service; and (d) ten months of probation; (b) two years of probation to Defendant B; (c) eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C; and (d) two years of probation.

In this court, we consider the conditions for sentencing and the applicable sentences.