A. The Defendant of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely delivered the passbook and the e-mail card to D, and D did not participate entirely in acquiring KRW 9,682,00 through the above passbook and the card.

There is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and the defraudation of D.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too heavy or (the Defendant) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of legal principles, the defendant seems to have been well aware of the fact that the passbook and e-mail card obtained by the victims listed in the annexed list 1 and 2 are used for telephone financial fraud. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles in determining the defendant as an accomplice in the fraud crime listed in the annexed list 3.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. We examine both the defendant and prosecutor's argument on unfair sentencing.

Although the Defendant took part in the defraudation of passbooks, etc. to be used in telephone financial fraud, and actually caused damage equivalent to KRW 100 million due to the above passbooks, etc., and did not recover damage, the Defendant did not have any unfavorable condition to the Defendant. However, in full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is deemed appropriate, and it is not recognized that the Defendant was excessively heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's argument are not accepted.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is all.