All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and 1 year of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination ex officio (as to Defendant A), where an access medium is transferred in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, one crime is established for each access medium, and where a number of access media is transferred in a lump sum, the act constitutes a single act and constitutes a case where several access media are transferred in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and each offense constitutes a commercial competition relationship.

It is reasonable to interpret (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1530, Mar. 25, 2010). This legal doctrine applies to cases where multiple access media are delivered and kept at once.

According to the above legal principles, between the crimes committed by Defendant A and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act No. 1 and No. 2 (Evidence No. 57,127 pages) and each electronic financial transaction act (Evidence No. 2, No. 4, and No. 6 of each electronic financial transaction act (Evidence No. 57, 308 pages) in the judgment of the court below are in a mutually competitive relationship, respectively.

Even though it should be seen, the court below neglected this.

However, the court below erred in assessing the number of crimes as above.

As a result, there is no difference in the scope of punishment, and such errors of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

It is difficult to see it (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7335, Feb. 28, 2003, etc.). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is not reversed.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A recognized all of the crimes of this case at the trial of the party, and against the fact that Defendant A violated all of the crimes of this case, and the profits acquired by each of the crimes of this case are significant.

It is difficult to see, and there is no record of criminal punishment, etc. in favor of others.

However, each of the instant frauds is an individual society that took part in the so-called Boishing fraud, which takes part in the so-called Boishing fraud, by acquiring money from the victim in a systematic and planned manner.