The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months.

Any seized case card AA, ..

1. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendants in summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, it should be an article provided or intended to be provided in criminal acts in order to be subject to confiscation under the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records, Defendant A stated that the mobile phone used for the crime in the court below and in the trial of the court below is Samsung B’s mobile phone (AB), and there is no evidence as to the fact that Samsung Talgalthophone (AC and No. 3) was an object provided for the crime of the instant fraud by Defendant A, and Defendant B stated that the case Talthte mobile phone (AD and No. 4) was not used for the instant crime in the trial, and there is no evidence to prove that the said mobile phone was provided for the crime of the said Defendant.

Therefore, the court below's judgment that forfeited Samsung Talthal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Ethal Est.

B. In addition, the appointment of one public defender for each accused is in principle (Article 15(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure), and if there is no conflict of interest among the accuseds, the same public defender for that accuseds can be appointed (Article 15(2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). According to the records, the court below appointed the same public defender for the accuseds and rendered a judgment after going through the pleading of the public defender by the same public defender. However, the defendants acknowledged the facts charged in this case from the prosecution investigation stage to the trial.