The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of the number of money of this case was merely considered as part of the loan collection business of the lending business entity, and it was unaware that it was related to the so-called phishing crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that, in full view of the records and arguments, including the structure of the instant Bosing, the role of the Defendant, the benefits system, and the period of the crime and the amount of deposits, the Defendant could have been fully aware of the fact that the Defendant, mainly engaged in the instant Bosing crime, was acting as a remittance liability, and subsequently, conspired with and conducted it in succession, on the grounds that he could sufficiently be recognized.

B. 1) On the other hand, if there were two or more co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize any crime. Thus, if there was a series of co-inheritorss among several persons, there was no process of any conspiracy between the entire number of persons.

Even if there is no obstacle to the establishment of the accomplice relation (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2368, Dec. 12, 1997, etc.). Meanwhile, in a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, as such, as the criminal intent cannot be objectively

At this time, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact is based on normal rule of experience, and it is reasonable to determine the link of facts with a thorough observation or analysis.