A. In light of the Defendant’s domestic residence period, etc., the Defendant, at the time of withdrawal of the amount of damage from the instant criminal act, was given the explanation to the Defendant directly by the bank employees of the Defendant for the commission of the instant criminal act, and was made false statement to the effect that the Defendant “to use the amount for the entire fee” was “to use the amount for the entire fee,” and that the Defendant shared the essential act of the instant criminal act under the order of the employees of the Defendant for the commission of the instant criminal act in order of and implied solicitation, and constitutes a joint principal offender for the crime of fraud, including the entire computer.

However, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and observation of protection) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court held that: (a) as to the assertion of mistake of fact-finding (the part of the lower judgment’s judgment 1); (b) based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of the lower court, the Defendant was involved in the act of aiding and abetting the Defendant to commit the instant crimes, such as holding that the Defendant currencyed approximately 70 times with the other party (N,O, P, Q, R, etc.) before and after each of the crimes in the lower judgment, and taking part in the act of aiding and abetting the Defendant as a joint principal offender.

볼 의심스러운 정황이 일부 있으나, ① 위 통화의 구체적인 내용이 어떤 것인지 알 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 보이스 피 싱 조직원들은 통상 추적이 어려운 중국 메신저 위 챗 등을 이용하여 상호 연락하는 특징이 있는 점, ② 수사기관에서 피고인의 휴대전화를 디지털 분석하였으나 피고인의 공범이 누구 인지를 비롯하여 이 사건 보이스 피 싱 범행의 공범들과 피고인 사이에 어떠한 범행 결의가 이루어졌는지 구체적으로 입증된 바...