2. The Defendant’s role in the judgment is an essential and critical role for the completion of the phishing crime, and the withdrawn amount is higher than KRW 50 million, and the damage recovery was not entirely performed until the trial is the case.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case with a conclusive intention

It is difficult to see that the accomplice who requested withdrawal from the Defendant issued an order to shipping KRW 50 million in cash, but the Defendant first withdrawn KRW 45 million out of KRW 50 million in the check in order to ensure tracking in the future, and in full taking into account all the facts that the Defendant was a primary offender and is against the depth of the crime, the lower court’s punishment was too unfeased and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.