The judgment below

The parts concerning Defendant C, D, and B shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

C and D shall be sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts (the fraud by fraud, computer, etc.) was not aware that the Defendant’s act of withdrawing cash was related to the phishing crime. As such, there was no intention to commit fraud, such as fraud and computer, etc.

B) In addition, the Defendant participated after receiving money from the victims and receiving money from the victims to the end of the crime of defraudation, and thus, the Defendant cannot be the accomplice of the crime of fraud, such as fraud and computer, by neglecting the latter act.

C) Therefore, the Defendant cannot be punished as a joint principal offender committing fraud such as fraud and computer, etc.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

D1) The Defendant considered Kwikset Service Call Center to be operated, and did not recognize that delivery items were physical cards, as well as did not know the fact that the instant physical card was used to withdraw the amount of damage acquired by deceptioning criminal organizations, and thus did not have any intent to commit the crime of fraud and the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

B) In relation to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Defendant distributed an access medium by receiving instructions from AS, as described in this part of the facts charged, by phone call to the Kwikset engineer B, and by allowing B to deliver the instant Bosing criminal organization’s withdrawal to A, a book of withdrawal.

Even if it is merely an internal delivery between the accomplices of the crime of fraud, it does not constitute the distribution of access media under the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that there was a misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the “payment of consideration” in relation to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, but the prosecutor applied for amendments to the bill of amendment as stated in Section 2-A below.