All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts against Defendant B) may at least recognize dolusences in fraud against Defendant B, and Defendant B may recognize functional control over the crime of fraud by performing the role of moving Defendant A, a remitter, to the place of crime.

B. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts merely received and printed out a forged official document file via a Messenger, and does not constitute a crime of forging documents. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant B not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that Defendant B participated in the crime of Bophishing, and that there was no evidence to prove otherwise.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

1) The fact that the documents in the name of the Chairman of the Financial Services Commission (Evidence No. 38 pages) held by Defendant A in the car owned by Defendant B were seized (Evidence No. 38 pages), and Defendant B stated that the prosecutor’s investigation was “the transfer of money,” but there was no person doing that work, and there was no person doing that work in the surrounding area and there was no omission (Evidence No. 183 pages)” (Evidence No. 183 pages), and Defendant A testified to the effect that “the first victim was shown to Defendant B after the first victim was delivered to the Financial Services Commission.” (In full view of the trial record No. 88 pages, Defendant B is aware of the instant crime.