The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant received three copies of the bank card from Co-Defendant A and examined whether the withdrawal of money is possible, but this is merely an act without the intention of committing an offense against the instant fraud and the Electronic Financial Transactions Act to receive daily allowances without knowing what kind of work the Co-Defendant committed. 2) The punishment of the Defendant of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The Prosecutor’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A, B: 1 year of imprisonment, and Defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination - We examine the Defendants’ grounds for appeal against the Defendants A, C and the Prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment.

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the head of a seized stolen property, for which the reason for return to the victim is apparent, shall be returned to the victim by judgment." According to the records, Articles 16 and 17, which were seized from Defendant B, are stolen goods of fraud as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below which the Defendants conspired, and the reason for return to the victim F is apparent. Thus, the court below omitted the declaration of return to the victim. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on return to the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court acknowledged the Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant reported the job-seeking advertisement “300,000 won per day” at “Z”, a Chinese Internet site, and contacted the advertiser with the time and place indicated in the instant facts charged.