The judgment below

Defendant B’s guilty portion shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

each of the seizures.

1. Summary of the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s Appeal

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the point of each fraud and fraud using computers, etc.) was true that Defendant A participated in the telephone financial fraud, but the economic benefits obtained from the crime were less and the awareness as an accomplice was not known. As such, Defendant A should be deemed as an aiding and abetting of the above fraud. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud and fraud by using computers, etc.) (1) withdrawal of money by the cash card delivered by Defendant B from the person in whose name the name the victim was not known that there was no conspiracy between the telephone financial fraud assistance staff and the above assistance staff, and that the said money was acquired by deceiving the victims. Defendant B was merely a withdrawal of money by hearing explanation from Defendant A that it was an exchange of money from the illegal sports gambling site. ② Even if the crime of fraud and fraud by using computers, etc. is recognized, the amount of damage should be limited to the sum of the amount actually withdrawn by Defendant A or much of the amount actually withdrawn by Defendant B. 2) The imprisonment (one year and two months) sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) In regard to the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the violation of each Electronic Financial Transaction Act on the list of crimes (attached Form 4), each nominal person (N, AP, AR, AS, and Q) listed in the annexed list of crimes (4) is subject to the transfer of the means of access in return for payment, and the personal information or contact information of the recipient of the means of access has not been verified without determining the method of return of the means of access. Therefore, this constitutes a case where the recipient of the means of access has transferred the means of access. 2) The sentence

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant A’s assertion is legitimate.