All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unfair that Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. As to each mistake of facts, Defendant B (1) committed an act in essence related to the phishing crime, such as taking a contact with the organization of the phishing or receiving money from the injured party, only when the Defendant was driving at the request of Defendant A.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a aiding and abetting that is not a common principal of fraud.

With respect to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the above-mentioned document, the defendant recognized the fact that the defendant was between the PC room to forge the document to be used for the crime of Bosing by the defendant A.

Even though it is difficult to see this part, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts in the first instance judgment that found the guilty.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court (the first instance court: 4 years of imprisonment, and the second instance court: 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the Defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below 1, 200, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings on both the above appeal cases. Each of the offenses against the Defendants in the lower court is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be imposed within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts against the lower court’s judgment No. 1 and 2 is still subject to the lower court’s judgment, and this is examined below.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to each fraud, namely, ① the defendant A on the part of his own vehicle driving at the scene of each crime.