A. In light of the legal principles, Defendant A’s crime against H, K, and N, and Defendant B’s crime against Q and T were committed by the victims, even though the account holder transferred money to the victims due to the failure of the victims to believe the Defendants, and the Defendants failed to immediately return the remitted money to the victims or to withdraw the remitted money due to the wind that the account is suspended from payment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles that recognized this part of the facts charged as the course of fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants (one and half years of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a type of crime of transferring funds to the account in the name of a third party under the control of the defendant among the phishing fraud crimes committed by the defendants among the judgment of misunderstanding the legal principles of the defendants, the crime of fraud in which the victim transfers funds to the account designated by the defendant shall be deemed to have been completed. As long as the crime was completed, whether the criminal gains practical benefits by means of deception, such as withdrawing the money, does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud.

Therefore, the court below's judgment that found the victims guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the Defendants transferred funds to a third party's account using the crime to the third party's account is justified, and that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as argued by the Defendants.

It is not recognized.

Therefore, the Defendants’ misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The lower court determined the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing: (a) the Defendants were in favor of each other; (b) the victims’ damage was recovered; (c) there was no criminal history against the Defendants; and (d) the Defendants were in depth against the Defendants.