A. For the purpose of receiving a loan, the Defendant, after hearing an explanation from the borrower that it is necessary to secure the result of the loan, has withdrawn and delivered the money to the employee as instructed by the borrower, and did not have any awareness that he was involved in the crime of Bosing fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted after examining the argument of mistake of facts, the following facts can be acknowledged.

When the Defendant waits outside of a bank, he entered the Defendant mixed bank to withdraw money in cash instead of a check, and immediately delivered the money to the Defendant.

Defendant

I also argued that he was the victim, but also the bank passbook used at the time was also discarded, and all letters and telephone numbers exchanged with the lender were deleted from the Defendant's handphone.

The Defendant has previously been punished for committing a crime related to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the aiding and abetting of fraud.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the Defendant appears to have been aware that he was involved in the phishing crime at least.

Defendant’s assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. There is no significant change in circumstances after the judgment of the court below on the assertion of unfair sentencing.

In light of all the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair, even if it is considered that the Defendant’s ground of appeal was unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. If so, the conclusion is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.