A. The Defendant, without knowledge of the fact that the Defendant’s deposit account was used for the instant e-mail trade fraud, did not intend to lend the said account and withdraw the deposit, nor did he conspired with C to commit the instant crime.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not required under the law in the co-offender relationship that two or more persons jointly process in a crime, but is only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons in a single crime.

Although there was no parent process in the whole, there was no parent process.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and investigated by the court below are determined to have been combined with the intent to realize the crime in the consecutive or implicit manner between the defendant and C in relation to the crime of fraud of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable for the crime as a joint principal offender with respect to the crime of fraud of this case even if those who did not directly participate in the act of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the crime of this case.

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

A) The so-called “e-mail trade fraud” crime as seen in the instant case is closely connected by each participant’s role in order to avoid crackdown by an investigative agency.