All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court ( ① one year of imprisonment for Defendant A, ② Defendant B, and C: 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (i.e., omission of sentence) - one head of the post office (Account Number AG) seized from Defendant B - one (No. 1) and one check card (WZ No. 2) are all provided for the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act that the above Defendant acquired and owned. However, the lower court omitted the sentence of forfeiture of each of the above seized articles.

Shebd Sentencing – The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the original trial on all the Defendants is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The public prosecutor’s assertion on the omission of the pronouncement of confiscation to Defendant B is discretionary. As such, the issue of whether to confiscate an article that meets the requirement of confiscation depends on the court’s discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002). Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the court below’s failure to sentence the confiscation of the seized article subject to voluntary confiscation is illegal. Thus, the prosecutor’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

B. We examine this part of the judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing together with the Defendants’ assertion.

(i) Common Sentencing - The fraud of Defendant A, C, and Defendant B is the most bad type of fraud in terms of the following: (a) fraud between a criminal who may be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years ( statutory penalty); (b) fraud means deception; (c) the method of deception; (d) the characteristic of planned and conclusive intentional act; and (e) the systematic and fatal crime.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed repeatedly against many victims, and most victims want to receive a second financial right even because it is not good economic situation.