Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the defendant A and Z, the judgment of the court of second instance, and the judgment of the court of third instance are the same.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine on Defendant BD A (hereinafter “Defendant BD”) committed an act of contact with, or distributing, Kwikset service providers that deliver a passbook with his name in accordance with the direction of the person who was not the victim. Defendant BD did not conspired to commit the phishing fraud with, Defendant A and Z and other accomplices in a successive and implicit manner.

The judgment of the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principal offenders.

B) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the illegal defendant BD (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The punishment of the first instance judgment against Defendant A (a prison term of two years and six months) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

3) In fact, Defendant Z did not participate in the money laundering of the fund laundering of the Red Cross criminal organization, such as the statement in the facts charged (as indicated in the relevant attached Form Nos. 11 through 14).

B) The punishment of the first instance judgment against the Z of the wrongful defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

4) Each sentence against the Defendants on the first instance judgment of the Prosecutor (as to the Defendants) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below 2) The sentence of the second instance judgment against Defendant A in favor of Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable to impose a resolution of KRW 2 on the Defendant A of the Prosecutor’s 2nd sentence because it is too unfasible.

(c)

With respect to the judgment of the court below of the third instance (the defendant's Z and the prosecutor), the judgment of the court below of the third instance against the defendant's Z (the two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) In other words, a prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the acquitted portion (1) a violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) is committed under the so-called “singinging” method, each member’s act of spreading malicious programs, inputting financial information, transfer of money, etc. connected to each member’s occupation organization.