A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts merely withdrawn and delivered cash in order to obtain a loan from a lending brokerage company, but did not fully recognize that this is a lump sum of the crimes of Bophishing. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts requires the intention of the so-called aiding and abetting the principal offender to practice and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, inasmuch as such intention is in depth, if the Defendant denies it, it is bound to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intent given the nature of an object. In this context, there is no other method than reasonably determining the link of facts based on the strict observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule. Moreover, the intention of the principal offender does not require the principal offender to reasonably recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to obtain dolusence or predictability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9500, Dec. 8, 201) and the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court that the Defendant could not be aware of the specific contents or method of fraud of a high school graduate, even if he did not use it as a means to commit the crime.