However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 16, 2018, the Defendant received text messages to the effect that he/she would grant a loan from a person who has not made a statement, and received a statement from a person who has not made a statement that “I would give a loan by raising the result of payment. If money is deposited into an account under the name of the Defendant, he/she would withdraw it in cash and deliver it to an employee who has not been made a payment,” and he/she received it with the knowledge that the foregoing date was illegal, and then notified the person who has not made a statement of the name of the Defendant.

On July 30, 2018, a name-free person made a false statement to the effect that he/she would make a loan by misrepresenting the victim D by telephone to the staff of the lending institution, and he/she received KRW 10 million from the victim to the B bank account (C) account in the name of the defendant at around 13:25 of the same day from the victim, and the defendant tried to withdraw KRW 10 million from the B bank in the name of the defendant in the name of the above defendant in the name of B bank in the name of the above defendant in the name of B bank in the same day and deliver it to the non-indicted.

Accordingly, the defendant provided an account to the person who was unaware of his name with knowledge that he committed the crime of fraud, and aided and abetted part of the money acquired by the person who was unaware of his name to the defendant's account by receiving the money from the person who was unaware of name.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the withdrawal of money, details of transactions, F dialogue, etc., details of deposit transactions, details of telephone conversations, and provisions of G mobile phone H dialogue;

1. Relevant Article 347(1) and Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 32 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to be mitigated legally;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is deemed to facilitate the Defendant’s criminal act of Bosing, in light of the social harm and injury of the criminal act of Bosing.