사기등
Of the part of the lower judgment’s confiscation against Defendant A, the above Defendant Nos. 42, 52 and the passbook in the name of the above Defendant.
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
A. Defendant A (the misunderstanding of facts and unreasonable sentencing) only thought that the Defendant transferred the proceeds related to the game site, there was no conspiracy with the phishing criminal organization to acquire the victims’ money, and there was no intention to acquire the money.
In addition, since it was unaware of the fact that the e-mail card under another person's name can be used for the crime, there was no intention to violate the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
B) With respect to the certificate Nos. 42 and 52 of the confiscated evidence, the head of the Tong, card, and the passbook and card under the name of another person was confiscated at the residence. However, since the Defendant did not use the passbook and card under his name for committing a crime, the lower court’s sentence of confiscation is unlawful. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court determined that Defendant A was not guilty on the part of KRW 8,711,50 of the amount of damage from the account held in the name of AB, AC, and AD among the fraud part against Defendant A, the lower court determined that Defendant A was not guilty on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge Defendant A’s participation in the withdrawal of the amount of damage from the said account. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine on this part, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant took part in the crime of Bosing for about one year; (b) took part in the crime of collecting the amount of damage from Bosing using another’s account; (c) the Defendant was an executive officer of the Bosing Organization; (d) the Defendant was the head of Tong and card, etc. of another’s name at the Defendant’s residence; and (e) even if the Defendant did not directly withdraw the amount of damage from the Defendant’s residence, the Defendant was liable for a joint principal offense.