A. The Defendant received cash from the victims in accordance with the direction of the person who was not the victim’s name and deposited it into the account designated by the person who was not the victim’s name and constitutes a co-principal rather than a co-principal (misunderstanding of legal principles) (B). Even if the Defendant’s act is found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing).2.

A. The following additional circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated by the evidence, i.e., the Defendant was involved in the instant crime through “T” and explicitly stated that the name infinite was “no later illegal, and the account transaction is no less than the customer, and the account transaction is no less than the cash collection.” The Defendant had already been aware that the instant crime was illegal; ② the Defendant was given a name infinite and text message through a app that was not used in the ordinary sense of “tel gram”; and ② the Defendant was given a letter and text message through “UU NNU NNN”.

“The Defendant’s instructions to introduce the Defendant’s name differently to the victims without any special reply; 3. The Defendant’s name omitted instructed the Defendant to deposit KRW 10 million in the first crime account in the name of 10,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant; and 4. The Defendant did not inquire of the reasons despite that there were sufficiently doubtful circumstances, such as the Defendant’s failure to verify the identity of the Defendant; and 4. The Defendant completed the deposit in accordance with the direction of the non-indicted on the first day of the crime of this case; and 10,000 won in the name of an individual account, other than the company account; and part of the account was not deposited in the name of the non-indicted; and 1.0,000 won in the name of the non-indicted.

“...” It is only one of the know-hows.