All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and C (i) did not commit the same crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and further, the crime Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the crimes table 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the annexed crimes of the court below is not related to the above Defendants due to the crime committed by AA in collusion with “CE” in the sexually unsound manner.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the said Defendants on the grounds of the lower court’s testimony without credibility.

D. In light of the fact that the equity and degree of participation in the punishment for the persons who participated in the instant criminal act was not the prosecution, the sentence imposed by the court below on the said Defendants (defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, and Defendant C: Imprisonment of 2 years and 2 years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (i) The above Defendant did not know the specific contents and did not have any outcome after having access to the Messenger as notified by Defendant A from the PC room, and did not have any outcome, and there was no fact that the Defendant, in collusion with Defendant A and C, obtained money by committing the “Messenphishing” crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, in the case of crimes listed in (i) Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 in the annexed list of crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below, there is no evidence to acknowledge the relevance of crimes with respect to accounts in the name of BI, CF, CG, and BE as a crime committed in collusion with the “CE” due to sexual incompetence.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and sentenced Defendant B guilty.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant B’s support was interrupted to Defendant B’s improper family members, and the situation that the above Defendant was involved in the instant crime is against the situation, the sentence that the court below sentenced the above Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) As to the assertion that the Defendants did not take part in the crime of this case, the health team, and the Defendants are also the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court.