All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) The Defendant did not receive an instruction from a staff member of telephone finance fraud crime to deliver the check to be exchanged from H, nor did he deliver the check to be exchanged to H.

2) misunderstanding of the legal principles) Violation of Article 254 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (i.e., the charged facts in the instant case are entirely specified as to when and how the Defendant was instructed by a staff member in the name in any manner, and at any time, when and wherever he received the above check.

D. Of the facts charged in the instant case, KRW 224 million, which was withdrawn by F, was remitted from the victim N to the national bank account in the name of the victim, and deposited in the K account with the amount of KRW 130 million transferred from other damage. The amount of KRW 94 million transferred to the said national bank account includes KRW 94 million. However, there is no document or material to know that the amount of KRW 94 million deposited in the said K account is the money acquired by deception as the telephone financial fraud crime, and therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that H was the money acquired by deception as the telephone financial fraud crime.

B) misunderstanding the legal principles on the trial limit of the establishment of aiding and abetting crime cannot be established after the commission of the principal is completed. As long as D withdraws the money in the account obtained by defraudation of telephone finance fraud and keeps it in cash, the act of the principal offender’s execution is terminated, and thereafter, the Defendant’s act of aiding and abetting and abetting fraud cannot be deemed as an act of aiding and abetting and abetting fraud.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.