The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Article 4 of the judgment of the court below) The Defendant did not know the name under Paragraph 4 of the judgment of the court below, and did not have any involvement in ordering H to intrude a residence and larceny, and as such, did not recognize the crime, the Defendant did not conspired to commit or participate in the crime.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is an artificially shared crime with various stages of organization, such as mid-term communication, invitation, withdrawal, transfer, etc., including a total book that plans and instructs a total crime.

In the light of the characteristics of the phishing criminal organization, it can be sufficiently anticipated that other members of the organization, other than themselves, would also commit the phishing crime by misrepresenting the financial institution or investigation agency in the lishidine, and there is an implied or successive conspiracy relationship with regard to the crime between the officers of the organization connected with the lishing organization.

Therefore, even though some of the members of the organization involved in the phishing crime did not specifically recognize the contents and method of the crime committed by other members and did not directly participate in the act of the commission, insofar as the relationship of the conspiracy is formed by participating in the phishing crime, and the functional control of the act by the conspiracy is recognized, the act of other members shall also be held liable as a joint principal offender.

The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court.

The court below's decision is consistent with the legal principles and various circumstances, and the defendant is a criminal investigation agency.