The remaining parts of the judgment of the court below, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, and the second judgment.

1. The first instance court’s dismissal of the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation in entirety, but the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation in accordance with Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the dismissed portion is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence sentenced to the first instance court (a punishment of imprisonment with prison labor of three years and confiscation against Defendant A), imprisonment with prison labor of two years and ten months and confiscation against Defendant B, and one year of imprisonment with prison labor against Defendant C) is deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

B. The punishment (Article 1: 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor and confiscation, and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) imposed by Defendant A (unfair punishment) by the original court is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant B (1) The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and ten months of imprisonment and confiscation) of the first instance judgment is too unreasonable. (2) Defendant B did not file an appeal against the lower court on March 29, 2019, and the written notification of the receipt of the trial record was not filed within 20 days of the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, even if Defendant B filed an appeal against the lower court on March 29, 2019, and on April 22, 2019, received the notification of the receipt of the trial record from this court, and there was no statement in the written petition of appeal

However, as examined below, the second judgment of the court below does not dismiss Defendant B’s appeal on the ground of failure to submit the grounds of appeal, unless it is reversed on the grounds of ex officio reversal.

Defendant

C1) As to the facts charged on October 12, 2018 by mistake of facts, Defendant C was only aware that Defendant A and B committed a Bophishing crime. Thus, the judgment of the court below that convicted Defendant C of the above part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (Article 1: 1: 1 year of imprisonment, and 2: 6 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (Article 1: 2) is too unreasonable.

3. The prosecutor ex officio and the reasons for appeal by the Defendants.