However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) notified an accomplice who was aware of the likelihood of being used for a crime, such as phishing, etc., at the time, of the fact that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she could not know of his/her name at that time; (b) notified the account number of a new bank account (Account Number C) in the name of the Defendant to an accomplice who could not know of his/her name; and (c) promised to withdraw and deliver the money to the said account if he/she was deposited into the said account; and (d) made a false statement to the effect that the accomplice who was unaware of his/her name would not know of his/her name that he/she would not know of his/her name to withdraw and deliver the money to the said account; and (d) called, “The Seoul City Si Forest Service, but the Seoul Si Forest Service, if an installment savings was leaked, would be deposited to the said new bank account.” (c) made it easier for the Defendant to commit the

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation (application for a warrant of search and inspection of accounts);

1. Article 347 (1) and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 347 (1) and 32 (1) of the Criminal Act (elective of imprisonment);

1. Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act mitigated for aiding and abetting, and Article 55(1)3 of the same Act

1. The sentencing guidelines do not apply to a crime of aiding and abetting the reasoning of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, which is set forth in the suspended sentence.

The crime of this case is related to the so-called “singishing” fraud that is planned and organized against many unspecified persons and leads a large number of victims. Moreover, the Defendant has a record of being sentenced to a fine not more than four times due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act. Nevertheless, the Defendant is in charge of the role of withdrawing the money deposited by the Bosing fraud from informing the account number to the public, and the amount of damage caused by aiding and abetting the fraud is considerably large.