1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months, Defendant B’s imprisonment for two years, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In the instant case, Defendant F, the primary victim of the instant case, i.e., the victim of the instant case, is “F,” and the victim is indicated only as “victim,” except where it is necessary to distinguish the unpaid mobile phone charges from other victims. After paying the unpaid mobile phone charges of KRW 2.8 million, the Defendant opened a cell phone under his/her name with his/her consent, and purchased an article with a credit card issued under his/her name upon the request of the victim that the said money needs to be needed, or with a credit card called “credit card tin” and then prepare cash by selling the article. The Defendant prepared money by means such as preparing money and paying KRW 11.5 million other than the expenses required, so there was no intention to obtain fraud. Moreover, even if the Defendant was found guilty of both the instant charges of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (three years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts refers to a method of selling a cell phone called 'ported-to-port' from A to a third party immediately after purchasing the cell phone, and giving money to the third party. The Defendant was in need of the third party, and did not take part in the criminal act of fraud by inducing profit, attracting, selling, and using credit cards. (2) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to depression, influence, or lack of ability to discern things or make decisions.

3) Even if the facts charged of this case of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. C. Defendant C’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts.