All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year, four months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that there was a history of punishment for a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part in the grounds for appeal), the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that there was another damage that he did not directly withdraw. Thus, the public offering relation is recognized as to the whole amount of the damage amount of the instant Bophishing. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the amount of damage transferred to another account than the account linked to the physical card held by the Defendant among the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles of the joint principal offender and misunderstanding of facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of the court below

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that it was difficult to recognize the Defendant’s joint principal offender liability for fraud in this part on the grounds that the Defendant did not have a physical card connected to the deposit account entered in the acquitted part, and the existence and role of the account itself was not known, among the members of the instant Bophishing Criminal Organization, on the grounds that there seems to be no doubt about the existence of cash withdrawal or remittance liability other than the Defendant, and its role, etc.

As a result of review of records, the judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error of law in mistake as argued by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

B. It is reasonable to respect both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the trial, new sentencing materials are considered.