The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have conspireded with E, etc. to commit the instant fraud, and there was no intention to commit the fraud or intent to obtain unlawful acquisition.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (long-term 10 months, short-term 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal ex officio, the Defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment of the court below due to G. G., but the Defendant became an adult at the time of the trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to a non-scheduled sentence was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of the above facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant: (a) was released from Seoul to Bulsan in order to make the money in mind; (b) received 5% of the money delivered at the expense of the Defendant; (c) actually received KRW 1,100,000 in terms of the amount of money and transportation expenses of KRW 5%; and (d) the Defendant thought that the Defendant was somewhat unlawful.

In full view of the facts stated, the above KRW 1.1 million was considerably high compared to the Defendant’s one’s work, and the fact that the Defendant received and delivered money from the needy person as it did not make any doubt, even though he did not know at all, despite the Defendant’s message and telephone instructions, the Defendant was determined to have taken part in the instant crime under the dolusent criminal intent.

B. The lower court’s above judgment is erroneous.