A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was unaware of the fact that the instant crime was committed.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court duly adopted and examined the following circumstances, namely, although the Defendant acted as an employee of the lending company, the Defendant did not have been employed as a regular employee by submitting a resume to the lending company and did not know the information of other employees, and the Defendant stated in the police that “the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was a hostinging crime” (Evidence No. 2), the circumstances and timing during which the Defendant took part in the Defendant’s criminal act, the circumstances and timing during which the Defendant’s statement was involved in the Defendant’s criminal act, and there was no other evidence to deem the aforementioned statement to be false; the Defendant deleted all the contents of the telegram conversation after the instant crime; the Defendant received large amount of cash; and the Defendant transferred a third party’s resident registration number and name to an individual account. In light of the following circumstances, it is deemed that the Defendant was sufficiently aware that the instant crime was committed.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s unfair judgment on the argument of sentencing was committed against many unspecified victims, and that there is a great adverse effect on society, and that there is a great need to punish them strictly, and that the Defendant did not completely repent of wrong acts, such as denying the Defendant’s own criminal act, and that the amount of damage in this case exceeds KRW 87 million, but did not recover from damage.

On the other hand, the defendant was sentenced to a fine once.