A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A. Defendant (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) 1) recognizes the fact that Defendant delivered money transferred to the account under the name of J from the victim F, R, etc. by means of remitting, withdrawing money, and depositing money into the account under the name of J pursuant to the direction of the members of the organization of the crime of fraud. However, the Defendant committed the above act under the recognition of delivery of illegal gambling funds. However, the Defendant did not have any negligence in fraud. 2) The Defendant received money from each of the above victims to the account under the J’s name and received money from the said victims to the account under the J’s name, and the above act of the Defendant was committed after the crime of fraud was already committed. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been liable for the crime of fraud as a joint principal offender, apart from the liability for the crime of aiding and abetting.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year, six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) In regard to fraud of the prosecutor (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing) 1, the lower court recognized only the Defendant’s liability for a crime of fraud as to ① KRW 6,600,00 that was remitted to the account under the J’s name among KRW 33,60,000 that was remitted from the victim F, and ② KRW 29,650,00 that was remitted from the victim R, and ② KRW 6,00,000 that was remitted to the account under the J’s name among KRW 29,650,000 that was remitted from the victim R, and acquitted the Defendant on the rest of the part. As long as the Defendant committed a crime of fraud in collaboration with the members of the other organization of the crime of phishing crimes, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant

2 The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, the relevant legal doctrine as to whether the defendant had the willful negligence in fraud, becomes such subjective element.