A. Defendant A1 did not have any awareness that the Defendant was involved in the instant Bophishing crime. The Defendant commenced the delivery of goods through a normal recruitment interview, and responded that the delivery of narcotics, etc. was not possible at the time of interview. In addition, the Defendant did not think that his remuneration was excessive because he was in the course of performing his duties in a foreign country. There was a fact that the Defendant himself was found in an investigative agency. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) The lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing, is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) against Defendant B (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Although the Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware that he was involved in the crime of Bophishing at least, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the trade name of the company that employed the Defendant or the name of the person who instructed him to work, and that the Defendant was receiving excessive remuneration compared to his work experience, and that the Defendant would have been aware of it.

A thorough comparison of the above judgment of the court below with the records is justified.

In addition, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the same evidence, i.e., the defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, seems to have made efforts to conceal his status, such as wearing a verification stamp and a post-verification, etc.