The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A and D (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and four months, confiscation, and Defendant D: imprisonment of two years and six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2) In the case of Defendant CA’s mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles (1) 2017 high order 9188, the lower court acknowledged the facts charged prior to the alteration as they were, even though the facts charged against Defendant C were changed and the part concerning the Bosing and accomplice’s relation were deleted.

(2) In the case 2017 High Order 9188, Defendant C’s role is limited to a passive act of participating in introducing Defendant A and B to Defendant D, and even if Defendant C was not in the principal offender’s position, there is an error of mistake in the lower judgment that recognized Defendant C as a joint principal offender for fraud.

(3) In the 2018 Highest 294 case, Defendant C did not form a conspiracy with Defendant D to collect the amount of damage caused by the Defendant’s phishing crime, and Defendant D led all of the crimes.

Defendant

C only a small act of participation to introduce V in the instant criminal facts No. 1, but did not participate in the crime No. 2.

B) The lower court’s sentence (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) against Defendant C, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (in respect of the Defendants)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Defendant C

A. According to the records on the assertion of violation of the principle of non-defasible nature, the prosecutor applied for the change of indictment to the lower court on May 15, 2018 on the case 2017 order 918 order, and the lower court may recognize the facts that permitted the change of indictment at the fifth trial date. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered judgment against Defendant C by referring to the facts charged prior to the change and sentenced Defendant C guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the change of indictment or the principle of non-defasible nature, which

This part of the defendant's argument is justified.

(b).