The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the guilty part in the original trial), Defendant A was only engaged in the telecommunications-based financial fraud in which F was recorded in the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant fraud crime”).

Although the lower court did not know that the Defendant committed the crime, it erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court recognized Defendant A’s liability as an aiding and abetting offender for the above crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant A is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the guilty portion at the time of original trial), Defendant B merely opened a mobile phone to F without knowing the purpose of use, and did not know that F committed the instant fraud, the lower court acknowledged Defendant B’s liability as an aiding and abetting offender for the said crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion of the reasoning in the original trial), Defendant A played a role in receiving money from the total withdrawal book with F and sending it to China. Defendant B provided F with a means of communication for safe contact with the assistant staff in China. As such, the Defendants’ functional control over the instant fraud crime should be recognized. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liability of the Defendants for the crime of aiding and abetting, which is not the joint principal offender of the said crime, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. mistake of facts between the two parties.