The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On February 2017, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant received money from the Defendant’s bank account by providing the Defendant’s bank account to the Defendant’s mobile phone from the Defendant’s personnel in a non-transaction; (b) the Defendant directly withdraws from the bank counter and sent the money to the Defendant’s employees in a non-name-based manner; and (c) notified the Defendant of the name-based number of the SC bank (C) in the name of the Defendant in response thereto.

On March 10, 2017, at around 13:00, the Defendant received a false statement that “The Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office is an investigator of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which created a passbook under the name of the party in Gyeonggi-do, the amount of damage was KRW 7,00,000,000, and all the money deposited in the account to be investigated into the opening of the passbook shall be sent to the account under the name of A (Defendant) and shall be returned if there is any error after confirmation,” and the Defendant received KRW 10,000,000 from the damaged person’s account under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant withdrawn KRW 13:20,000 in cash from the counter of the SC Bank in Dong-dong, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was located in Dong-gu, Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and sent the name of the party under the name of the bank to the person under whose control was waiting in the bank.

As a result, the Defendant provided an account with the knowledge of the fact that the 10 million won of cash fraud by deceiving the victim, and provided it to facilitate the crime by withdrawing and delivering cash.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant did not follow the instructions of his name in order to obtain the loan, but did not know that the Defendant was used for the phishing crime. Therefore, there was no awareness that the Defendant assisted the phishing fraud.

B. The act of protection under the relevant legal doctrine is direct and indirect that facilitates the principal offender’s criminal act with the knowledge that it constitutes a crime.