A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ① The Defendant was aware that he was involved in the process of money laundering for tax evasion only at the time of each of the instant crimes, and did not recognize that he was involved in telephone financing fraud.

(2) The crime of telephone financing fraud is committed up to the maturity of money by remitting money to the account designated by the victim. Since the Defendant was only in charge of receiving cash from a person in the name of the account and remitting money to another account after the crime of fraud has already been committed, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime against the Defendant’s act.

2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, confiscation, and 2: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, even if a joint principal offender relationship between an employee of telephone financing fraud and the Defendant was recognized, the second court determined the fraud as an aiding and abetting the fraud. The second court below erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) Each sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Prior to the determination of the reasons for an ex officio appeal, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeals cases. Since each of the offenses of the judgment below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The defendant asserted that the misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles of the defendant was identical to the judgment of the court of first and second instance, and the court of first and second instance rejected each of the above arguments in detail. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first and second court.