The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by ten months of imprisonment.

However, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The reasons for appeal by the Defendant did not verify whether a single employee C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) in charge of loans actually works in the Korea Savings Bank.

The Defendant, immediately before committing the instant crime, was hostilely damaged by telecommunications financing fraud (chercing phishing), and was doubtful as to whether the Defendant was not licensing at the time of the instant case.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the relevant evidence such as the defendant's behavior or prosecutor's statement, the facts charged in this case can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that it was difficult to recognize the intention of aiding and abetting the Defendant or the principal offender’s intention, and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the judgment, the Defendant committed the same act as stated in the facts charged with recognizing that he/she was fully involved in the withdrawal of damage from the crime of licensing.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and acquitted the Defendant of the charges.

A. On January 13, 2016, prior to the instant crime, the Defendant paid money under the pretext of a guarantee insurance premium, etc. or paid money under the pretext of an existing loan to enhance credit rating, which was the victim of the instant crime.

On January 15, 2016, the Defendant reported the fact of damage to the investigation agency.

The crime of this case committed after one week from the victims deposited money in the account of the defendant, which is similar to the defendant by the victims from Bosishing staff.

B. The employee C in charge of loan explained that while counseling with the Defendant, the Defendant applied for the loan as a full-time loan. The Defendant seems to have known that there was an illegal aspect in the loan process.

In addition, C shall pay the defendant money in cash other than the check.