A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized evidence 3 shall be confiscated.

The defendant.

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) (1) misunderstanding of facts, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant believed that the Defendant was engaged in the business of the Defendant and was engaged in the business of the Defendant by taking out normal employment by deceiving or inducing the instant Bosing daily wages. As such, there was no willful negligence that the Defendant was involved in the commission of the commission of the phishing fraud.

Even if the defendant's participation in fraud is recognized, the defendant merely played a role of a mechanical change according to the direction of Bosing employee, and thus, it is not a joint principal offender but a crime of aiding and abetting the crime of Bosing fraud. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence (one year, two months and confiscation) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentencing that the court below decided against the defendant is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant was willing to acquire money from many unspecified people in the Republic of Korea, along with the general policy that manages the overall crime of international telecommunications fraud (hereinafter referred to as “scaming”), and the call center; and (b) the inducement policy that calls to unspecified people.

Around 10:00 on September 20, 2017, the total liability to the victim C with the false statement to the effect that “Around September 20, 2017, the Defendant sent a phone call to the victim C and “A prosecutor of the central prosecutor of the Seoul central prosecutor, who was arrested in the case of fraud, discovered a passbook with the name of the party and confirmed the details of the entry and withdrawal transaction, and that the Defendant would return the money he/she has to confirm whether the Defendant is a suspect or a victim by withdrawing the money he/she has to confirm and return the source of the money.”