A. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding G 1’s statement to the effect that H and the Defendant was a person who was working for the licensing organization from China, and the Defendant appears to have participated in the licensing organization before entering Korea, the Defendant should also be found guilty of the charge of fraud by using a computer against the victim D around September 1, 2014.

However, the court below acquitted the victim D of fraud by using the computer, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant merely received money from G and delivered the money to a refund prior suit, and did not perform any act such as managing cash withdrawal books.

In addition, the Defendant would retire from money exchange to FL on October 2014.

In other words, the crime was no longer committed after the victim was injured on November 13, 2014, and the crime after November 13, 2014 cannot be attributed to the defendant.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts in the instant case reveals that the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea on September 1, 2014; however, there is no doubt as to whether the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea on the same day or several occasions; “G’s prosecutor’s statement from E or H that the Defendant participated in the commission of the phishing crime from the time when the Defendant is in China is in China, is inadmissible as it is merely a professional statement; and there is no evidence to support the circumstance that the Defendant was involved in the phishing crime in any form before the time of entry, or that he was given contact with E or H, etc., even before the settlement in the Republic of Korea.