All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Inasmuch as the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was engaged in the act of collecting claims and was not aware of the fact that he was involved in the crime of Bophishing, the Defendant did not have intention to commit fraud. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment)

B. The above sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the Defendant makes a confession

The crime of fraud is also established by dolusent intentional negligence. The subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is expressed as unclear and it is acceptable. In order to have dolusent intentional negligence, there is a perception of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, as well as an intent to deliberate to allow the risk of the occurrence of the crime.

In light of how the general public can assess the possibility of the occurrence of the relevant crime without depending on the statement of the offender as to whether the offender was aware of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, the psychological conditions should be ratified from the perspective of the offender, taking into account how the general public can assess the possibility of the occurrence of the crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9497 Decided January 14, 2016, etc.). B.

The Defendant also asserted the same in the lower court.

Accordingly, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, deemed that the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was involved in the singishing crime.