All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (De facto mistake and unreasonable sentencing) 1) (1) did not have any awareness or intent that the Defendant was involved in each of the instant Bophishing crimes. ② The Defendant did not engage in an employee of the Financial Supervisory Service at the time when he was granted the victims of each of the instant Bophishing crimes. ③ The Defendant did not know that the document in the name of the Chairman presented to the Victim L of the Seoul Central District Court 2019Da4722 was forged. ② The Defendant did not know that the document in the name of the Chairman presented to the Financial Services Commission to the Victim L of the instant case was forged. ② The imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the

B. The above sentence imposed by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. 1) In a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent by the relevant legal doctrine on whether he/she was involved in each of the instant crimes, the facts constituting such subjective elements are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having substantial relevance with the criminal intent given the nature of things. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). The criminal intent is not a conclusive intentional act, but a willful intentional act of the victims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, in light of the foregoing detailed legal doctrine, the health care unit duly adopted by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (hereinafter “instant evidence”).