A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Nos. 14 through 19, 23 through 26 of seized evidence.

A. As to the fraud, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the facts, the Defendant did not know that the money withdrawn and remitted by himself at the time of committing the instant crime was related to Bosishing crimes.

2) As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Defendant was finally transferred the ownership or right to dispose of the access medium from the owners of the access medium.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the media was taken over.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor due to the amendment to the indictment was to apply the Act on the Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in the instant case to “Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act,” and “Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act,” and “Article 49(4)2 and Article 6(3)3 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act,” and Article 6(2) of the facts charged were to be changed to the following contents by the court’s permission, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

【Revised Facts】

2. Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

가. 피고인은 2015. 10. 13. 경 서울 용산구 동자동에 있는 서울역 부근 노상에서 위쳇을 통하여 보이스 피 싱 피해 금 인출을 지시하는 F 등의 지시에 따라 퀵 서비스를 통하여 I 명의 외환은행 계좌 (M )에 연결된 체크카드, OTP를 건네받는 등 범죄에 이용될 것을 알면서 전자금융거래의 접근 매체를 전달 받아 보관하였다.

나. 피고인은 2015. 10. 15. 10:50 경 서울 구로구 구로 중앙로에 있는 구로 역 부근 노상에서 위쳇을 통하여 보이스 피 싱 피해 금 인출을 지시하는 J 등의 지시에 따라 퀵 서비스를...