All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have any relation with the Defendant’s singing staff of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant conspiredd with the Defendant to commit the instant fraud with the instant singing staff.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In light of the fact that an investigative agency outputs the data stored in the instant mobile phone from the medium “refit” and submitted as evidence (Evidence 1:281 to 336 pages of document 281; hereinafter “the output of this case”) does not guarantee the reliability of the program and the professional ability of the operator in light of the fact that the data stored in the instant mobile phone were restored without any omission of part of the data stored therein, and there is a text message transmitted from the instant mobile phone even after the seizure of the instant mobile phone, the investigative agency could have artificially fabricated fabricated the data stored in the instant mobile phone.

Therefore, the output of this case is inadmissible.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to a witness H, I’s legal testimony, I’s written statement, and a report on the result of obtaining digital evidence on the Defendant’s assertion of denial of admissibility of evidence, it can be recognized that the hh value of the data memoryed in the instant mobile phone and the amount of the media “influence” of the said data are identical, and that the investigative agency did not commit any manipulation in the data stored in the instant mobile phone. According to this, the data memoryd in the instant mobile phone and the output of the instant case are recognized as identical, and thus, the output of the instant case is admissible.

The Defendant considered the fact that part of the data stored in the instant mobile phone was restored without omission, but the fact that all deleted data from the mobile phone were not restored is more reasonable, and it does not constitute a reason to deny the admissibility of the restored data.

The defendant.