A. The Defendant did not conspired to commit the phishing crime, such as the facts charged, and did not have the intent to commit the phishing crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal principles, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant is led to his confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence, the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and there was an incomplete intention.

In order to determine the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, not only is there a perception of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is a internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the offender has accepted the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside, etc., the possibility of the occurrence of the crime should be evaluated and confirmed from the standpoint of the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do769, Apr. 14, 201). In the joint-processing relationship between two or more persons, there is a combination of intent to jointly process the crime and realize the crime. As such, there is no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there are two or more persons, the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly.