Of the defendants A, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, the defendant A.

A. Prosecutor 1) Defendant A (unfair sentencing) was responsible for the collection of cash, which can serve as a key role in the instant Bosing crime, and the Defendant A was responsible for such crime as if he were the employees of financial institutions in the course of defrauding a total of KRW 26 million from three victims as if he were the employees of financial institutions. However, the lower court sentenced Defendant A to 10 months of imprisonment. Thus, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) ① it is difficult to understand Defendant B’s assertion on the background leading up to Chuncheon in light of the empirical rule, etc., ② it is difficult to accept the allegation that Defendant B was aware of the contact number of Defendant B, and Defendant B was made a phone call from the aforementioned assistant staff, and Defendant A was not allowed to separately confirm, in light of common sense. ③ Defendant B had a fact between Defendant A and Defendant A after the instant case, and Defendant A asked about whether Defendant A had a scam at that time. Accordingly, Defendant A had already been suspected of the Defendant’s behavior from the time of visiting Chuncheon.

In full view of the fact that it is reasonable to see that Defendant B was aware of Defendant B’s conspiracy and aiding and abetting Bosing, but Defendant B is insufficient to recognize Defendant B’s intentional act of aiding and abetting fraud.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, and recorded the facts constituting the crime together with Defendant A upon Defendant A’s telephone.