The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while he was aware of the fact that the Defendant committed the phishing fraud, only paid the money deposited into the principal’s account according to the instructions of the phishing person and delivered the money to the phishing person.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not commit the crime of aiding and abetting fraud because the Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of aiding and abetting or aiding and abetting the above fraud at the time of withdrawal and delivery of money.

The punishment of the court below (4 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant did not confirm the name of the company or the office that the Defendant performed at the time; (b) did not withdraw and deliver the money; and (c) did not confirm the personal information of the other party who received the money at the time of withdrawal; (d) the employees of the bank received answer data in advance in preparation for the time when withdrawal of the money was paid; (e) even before having heard the statement that the bank’s account was reported to the singish account from the bank employees, the Defendant continued to inquire of the fee to the singish account; or even specified the victim who appears to have reported to the singish account to the singish account; and (vi) the Defendant had experience in operating the loan business, etc.; and (e) the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the singish or the singish name of the Defendant committed the instant crime.

In the end, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The defendant is in the period of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor due to his previous history.