The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant

B.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A’s sentence is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are aware that Kwikset service was conducted, and the Defendant did not have any awareness that he was involved in the scaming crime. (2) The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

C. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor Defendants is too minor.

2. The court below duly adopted and examined the evidence on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles compared with the reasons indicated in the “judgment on Defendant B’s assertion” item, and closely examined the following circumstances, which can be seen by the aforementioned evidence. ① The Defendant, upon receiving the untitled prepaidphone from the untitled owner from the untitled owner, did not have any reason to carry out his duties using the untitled prepaidphone in the name of the nominal owner, and ② the Defendant received the remuneration of KRW 100,000 per case (excluding expenses) for the work of collecting goods from each across the country in accordance with the orders of the untitled owner, and even if the Defendant did not know that the Defendants were unable to carry out his/her duties by using the aforementioned prephonedphoned, the Defendant did not appear ordinarily, ③ the Defendant did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the Defendants did not use the name or untitled letters, but did not appear to have been subject to the instructions of the commission and/or the Defendant’s name through the entire organization of the criminal act.