The judgment below

The remainder, excluding a compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The sentence of the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Inspection agent: The confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act of the confiscation of evidence No. 2 (Carryingphones) is voluntary, so whether it is necessary to confiscate even an article that meets the requirements for confiscation is left at the court’s discretion.

As such, (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do515, Sept. 4, 2002, etc.). Even if the court below did not sentence the forfeiture of one mobile phone (No. 2) confiscated as a subject of voluntary forfeiture, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, or by omitting necessary judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The sentence was omitted, and the sentence of the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination is a favorable sentencing factor, such as that the Defendant was involved in the crime for the purpose of living and medical expenses (such as the wife’s son, brain salute disorder, and the wife’s care), and that the Defendant was an initial offender who did not have any criminal record.

However, even though the Defendant was under investigation in 2018 on the suspicion of transferring his body card and was indicted for suspension of indictment, it is inevitable to punish the Defendant in light of the following: (a) the Defendant performed the delivery of documents according to the instructions of the investigators without awareness; (b) voluntarily participated in the role of the book for delivery of cash last 5 times; and (c) the collection and delivery of cash of this case continued more than 10 times while holding five forged documents, etc.; and (d) the amount of damage exceeds 130,9760,00 won, etc., it is necessary to punish the Defendant accordingly.

As in the instant case, the crime of Bosing, like the instant case, needs to be strictly punished even for some participants, because there is a very great harm that may cause the society, such as that the method of the commission of the crime is systematically planned intelligent and large number of victims, and bring about a financial institution’s incompetence. Since the collection and delivery of cash is an essential element to complete the crimes of Bosing, the degree of the Defendant’s involvement is light.

I cannot see it, as above.