The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence 12 shall be confiscated.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant 1) Since the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles did not recognize the fact that the Defendant was involved in the criminal conduct of Bosing, there was no intention to commit fraud.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion in its reasoning. In line with the aforementioned judgment, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles is rejected.

B. We examine both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion on the improper sentencing of the Defendant and the Prosecutor.

The crime of "Sishing" is a crime that induces many unspecified victims in a systematic and planned manner by sharing the roles of a large number of people, and it is not very good to commit such crime, and there is a serious risk of harm inflicted on the victims' individuals and society.

It is necessary to prevent recurrence by strictly punishing a member of the organization who has participated in the crime even though he/she is unable to arrest the entire organization because the crime consists of the form of the organization.

The role of the defendant as a liability for withdrawal and remittance of cash is essential for the completion of the phishing crime and the realization of profit, and the degree of participation is not easy.

However, the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, and the crime of this case was committed against the attempted crime, and eventually did not gain any benefit.

The defendant is considered to have committed a crime closely, and has committed a crime with negligence, not with conclusive intention.