The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are suspected of being used in a crime, but the Defendant provided an account at the time of false phishing, which is a normal transaction.

Since fraud was already completed at the time of deposit of money in the Defendant’s account, the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the determination that the Defendant played a critical role in the completion of crime by withdrawing and conveying the money.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) On the assertion that the Defendant offered an account at the time of the principal offender’s fraud, the following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.

The defendant transferred or leased his passbook, etc. to another person even before, was investigated five times due to the suspicion of lending, and three times among them was convicted.

The above passbooks, etc. were used for the crimes of Bosing.

Although the defendant had searched the company referred to as Bosing principal offender on the Internet, he could not find it.

The defendant did not ask the company's business or location.

Considering these circumstances, the Defendant was aware that his account was used for the commission of the criminal act of licensing.

The decision is judged.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) As to the assertion that the criminal act of fraud was completed before the Defendant withdraws money, the crime of Bosing fraud is terminated at the time when the money was remitted from the damaged party to the Defendant’s deposit account, and thus, the Defendant’s withdrawal of money does not constitute an act constituting the elements for aiding and abetting fraud.

However, it is easy for the Defendant to commit phishing crimes by providing an account and withdrawing money from the account and delivering it to the principal offender.