All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Unless the Defendant was aware that he was involved in the act of fraud by telephone financial fraud, as well as the Defendant did not recognize that he was involved in the act of fraud by telephone financial fraud, and as he was already involved in the act of fraud after the crime of fraud was committed, aiding and abetting the crime of fraud cannot be established. Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) The Defendant omitted additional collection and omission made it easy for the Defendant to commit the phishing fraud by taking charge of the liability for removal or withdrawal of the Telephone Financial Fraud Group. The amount of KRW 150,105,40,00, acquired from the victim by the Telephone Financial Fraud Group, as criminal injury property, is the Act on Special Cases Concerning Forfeiture and Restoration of Decomposment Property (hereinafter “Corruption Property Confiscation Act”).

Article 6(1) of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property provides for additional collection of criminal damage property against a defendant pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property (see, e.g., Article 73 of the Public Trial Records). However, since criminal damage property is subject to restitution or delivery, it is not subject to additional collection, Article 6 of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property provides for additional collection of criminal damage property for the protection of the victim, and for the recovery of the victim's property confiscated or additionally collected, and it is deemed that collection is sought pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Act on the Confiscation of Decomposed Property. Accordingly, the court below did not additionally collect criminal damage property against the defendant from the defendant, who is an aiding and abetting offender of fraud. However, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.