The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not recognize that the Defendant was involved in the crime of Bosing, so there was no willful negligence in the fraud. Even if the willful negligence of domestic affairs is recognized, it constitutes a fraud which facilitates the act of the principal offender, not the joint principal offender.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (al.e., one year and six months of imprisonment, and No. 1) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant alleged the same purport that there was no negligence in relation to the crime of Bosing fraud, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in the part “Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

In addition to the legal principles and circumstances cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant is recognized as taking part in the Defendant’s act as a means of delivering cash to the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the Defendant’s commission of the commission of

① “M agency” other than receiving cell phoness related to identity verification, provided the Defendant with a large amount of money in cash without any interview for employment, and specific instructions were given through telegram messages.

This can not be seen as an exceptional.

② The Defendant, upon the instruction of “M agency”, received cash from any person who is unaware of the entire country, and deposited the passbook without passbook.

The Defendant’s credit rating from M agency is the same as that of a customer.