The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (with respect to fraud), Defendant 1 thought that bitcos were withdrawn from the Republic of Korea money and remitted money to China, and introduced H only to the person wishing to exchange, and did not know the fact that she was committing the so-called “Sishing” crime, and did not have been involved.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the rules of evidence.

In fact, the error was found.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, additional collection KRW 100,00) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized as a joint principal offender for the crime of phishing by allowing H to deliver the money to G to the interim remittance books by bearing the instant crime at the vehicle, with the recognition that the instant crime was a phishing crime.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

① Since the investigative agency, to the court of the court below, H consistently stated that “The Defendant called the Defendant to deliver the money to the Defendant (G) at the underground parking lot of the Seocheon-dong modern department store, Hoho-dong, to the Sinsi-dong, and to the Sinsi-dong, Sinsi-dong.”

Considering the fact that the H’s statement appears to have no specific and reasonable explanation and that there is no motive to make a particular false statement, there is sufficient credibility.

② The Defendant introduced and sent H to a person who wants to exchange (AI) for three hours, and as H did not exchange for three hours, the Defendant sent (G) to him/her at the port.