All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts only thought that the Defendant received money from customers using an overseas gambling site or virtual currency trading site, and there was no awareness of the fact that the victims deceiving the victims to acquire money. 2) In light of the legal doctrine’s participation and degree of awareness, the Defendant is merely a co-principal, not a co-principal.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s deception by deceiving the victims under the Boassing Criminal Act.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) The role of the Defendant in the instant fraud crime is as follows. In other words, the Defendant informed the Defendant that his name was B or C of the accomplice (the accomplice who exchanged contact with the Defendant).

The victim shall move to the place of crime according to the direction of the victim and only pass.

The victim, who was an accomplice and a telephone conversation, has replaced his phone call to the defendant, and the defendant, while making a telephone with his accomplice, has followed the procedure of confirming whether he is an accomplice and the defendant, and received money from the victim without any special conversation with the victim.

When the defendant contacts the accomplice to receive money, the accomplice informed the defendant of the list of remitters including his name, telephone number, resident registration number, etc. and the deposit account to be deposited, and the defendant sent money to the deposit account in the name of the remitter listed on the above list to the near bank.

The defendant.