The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant received money from the victims and deposited money into the account directed by the management measures, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the act was only doubtful as to whether the act was not a work loan, and that the act was related to licensing.

Even if the defendant is held liable for the crime of Bophishing, the defendant is merely involved in cash deposit affairs in a passive manner in accordance with the direction of the JJ, which is the employer, so it should be deemed that the defendant did not have the organization of Bophishing and the intention of conspiracy, and that the defendant was

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (a three years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In a case where a criminal defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be proven to be objective, and thus, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object.

At this time, what is the indirect or circumstantial facts related should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts with the detailed observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, willful negligence, unlike gross negligence, should be aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, the intention of internal deliberation to allow the risk of crime.

The possibility of criminal facts will occur to the general public on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act, which was disclosed outside without depending on the statement of the offender whether the actor has accepted the possibility of criminal facts.