The part of the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance against Defendant A (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) A was in a state of mental disorder directed to the state of restitution, rejection, etc. at the time of each of the instant crimes. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence imposed by each of the lower courts on Defendant A (the first instance court’s imprisonment: one year and six months; the second instance court’s imprisonment: 10 months; and the second instance court’s additional collection KRW 50,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) On the first instance judgment, in light of the following: (a) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles and the harm therefrom are widely known domestically and overseas; (b) Defendant A was paid a high amount of remuneration compared to the process of Defendant A’s taking charge of the fee-related business or the content of the fee-related business; and (c) Defendant A was in charge of a typical role of taking the responsibility of collecting or remitting cash in the crime of Bosing; and (d) this constitutes a constituent act of fraud, it can be fully recognized that Defendant A conspired with the employees of Bosing and attempted to obtain money from victims, as indicated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court of first instance recognized only the liability for aiding and abetting the defendant A to have no evidence to acknowledge the relationship between the intention of joint processing and mutual use. The judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant A about the attempted fraud and attempted fraud among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principal offenders.

B) The sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair. 2) Defendant B, among the judgment of the court below on the second instance, stated that the remitted money received from Defendant A was requested from the money exchange and stated that it was requested from the money exchange, and thus, it is difficult to trust that the statement was returned to the money exchanged for different description of transactions.