All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant 1 did not have an intention to commit a fraud by Bosing, misunderstanding the facts, and misunderstanding the legal principles, and accordingly conspired with other accomplices to commit the fraud.

The Defendant’s act alone does not constitute a functional control over the commission of the instant crime.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts concerning the criminal intent to obtain fraud or the joint principal offender.

2. The sentence of the court below (the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for one year, two years, two hundred hours, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. The lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that, based on the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning in the part regarding “the Defendant’s and the defense counsel’s assertion”, the lower court, based on the following circumstances: (a) had dolusence in the Defendant’s criminal act; and (b) performed the role of transmitting cash, which is the cash fraud, to the organization of

Examining the facts and judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts affecting the judgment or by misunderstanding the legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The crime of licensing fraud committed against many unspecified persons in a planned and organized manner against the defendant and prosecutor’s unfair judgment on the determination of the sentencing is highly harmful to the society, and the role of the defendant’s cash delivery policy is as a whole.