All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The Defendant involved in fraud did not have any awareness or intent to take part in the crime of Bosing fraud, even at the time of the withdrawal of the instant crime list (1) 1 to 4 times, and the remainder 5 and 6 times at the time of the withdrawal of the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of fraud (1) 5 and 6 at a net time, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B) On January 5, 2015, 201, the Defendant received 1 copy of the C C C C C C C C C C C C’s C’s C’s name in the name of non-defluence, as in the C’s net 5, and 6 B’s C’s name, but the Defendant did not receive a password or an order to withdraw from C’s name with respect to the above C’s C’s C’s name.

Therefore, since the possibility of exclusive use can not be considered as a transfer definitely, it is not included in the acquisition of an access medium under Article 6 (3) 1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act 5 and 6 in the list of crimes Nos. 5 and 6. There is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court determined that the part of the fourth police suspect interrogation protocol againstO that “the Defendant was the same person as us” cannot be used as evidence, which constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence, and in light of the statement and other evidence in the aboveO’s investigation agency, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant was aware and had an intention to take part in the crime of Bophishing fraud even at the time of withdrawal under (1) through (4) of the list of crimes.

Nevertheless, the court below is not guilty of the facts charged in each of the above parts.