All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the characteristics of the crime of Bohishing combined with a misunderstanding of facts, and the character of the act of exchange performed by the Defendants, specific roles, and degree of involvement, etc., the Defendants can be held liable for the aiding and abetting of the crime of Bohishing. In addition, Defendant B in collusion with Defendant A to conduct a money exchange business without registration.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A (the imprisonment of eight months and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, cannot be deemed to have proved without any reasonable doubt that Defendant A committed the instant exchange act with intent as an aiding and abetting agent for the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission

The lower court acquitted the Defendants of each of the facts charged in the instant case on the charges of aiding and abetting and abetting the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment was duly adopted by the lower court and closely examined the evidence, and the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

Defendant

A was running a unregistered money exchange business according to the proposal of D at the time, and the money transmitted by I according to D's instructions is part of the continuous money exchange act.