The part of the forfeiture shall be reversed.

The evidence seized shall be confiscated from the accused.

A. The judgment of the court below that recognized that the defendant acquired the money by conspiracy with the person who was not the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was not the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person who was the person was the person who was the person who was the person

B. The defendant asserts that, with respect to the punishment imposed by the court below (one year and eight months of imprisonment), the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court, based on the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” among the said judgment, found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

원심이 설시한 사정들에다가 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인은 성명불상자로부터 ‘위챗’을 통해 지시를 받아 현금을 건네받고 이를 송금하여 구체적인 송금장소도 알지 못한다는 취지로 진술하였는데, 그 ‘위챗’ 메시지는 피고인이 삭제하였다고 하는 점(증거기록 179쪽) 등을 보태어 보면, 피고인이 적어도 미필적으로나마 보이스피싱 범행에 가담한다고 인식하고 이 사건 범행을 저질렀다고 인정할 수 있다.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake as alleged by the defendant.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the sentencing conditions, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, to respect it.