The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant thought that the defendant was to transfer the investment money from investors to the company by receiving the bit Co-investment money, but did not know that the so-called bit phishing crime was committed, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have the intention to acquire it. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. was based on the following circumstances, namely, ① the Defendant collected cash only by collecting cash, and the Defendant appears to have been fully aware that the cash collected was related to the crime, such as fraud, and ② the Defendant was actually aware of the fact that the investigative agency’s act was illegal.

In light of the fact that the Defendant prepared to make a prior preparation to the effect that the Defendant would make a contribution to the employees of the bank when the Defendant’s cash was generated together with the employees of the bank, ③ the Defendant collected money from the Defendant upon delivery of the increased call, such as “40 middle and high-speed 173 cents” rather than the name or contact address of the Defendant at the time of collecting money, ④ the Defendant transferred the check card in his own name for the purpose of lending a loan around April 2018, and the account was used for the loan and was immediately suspended, and the Defendant was subject to an investigation at the investigative agency. ⑤ The Defendant searched the Defendant in relation to the collection of cash on the Internet as his accomplice did not make a contribution to the instant crime, and searched the contents relating to the licensing, and made a statement at the investigative agency.