In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not conduct any investigation into the substance of the lending company “G” that he/she had worked; (b) received instructions to transfer money from the telegram secret rooms; (c) the Defendant concealed his/her identity at the time of receiving money from the account holders (E, etc.); (d) did not specifically verify whether the account holders who paid money are identical with the lender; and (c) the process for collecting loans was conducted in an abnormal manner by returning several banks over the same day and remitting money; and (d) the Defendant was a person who recorded law. In full view of such circumstances as the fact that the remittance procedure for the money he/she performed was part of the crime of phishing, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the money transfer procedure was part of the crime of phishing.

must be viewed.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) Examining the circumstances in which the Defendant was involved in the instant crime (or from E, etc. to transfer the proceeds from the phishing fraud to the account under the name of the phishing staff member), the Defendant was employed as a part-time student in the remittance of loans from the lending company.

I think, and acted as ordered by the person believed to be an employee of the lending enterprise.

(2) While examining the contents of the Kakao Stockholm or telegram dialogue between the Defendant and the Defendant’s name-free singing staff, the Kakasing constituted the Defendant to explain or suggest the Defendant to commit the Kasing crime, and (3) the Defendant does not act when he appears to be a criminal at the time of transfer of money, and the name and resident registration number of the Defendant is accurate in the deposit certificate.