The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Two mobile phones (No. 10, 11) seized Samsung mobile phones.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant: (a) contacted one another with the “President”; (b) separately received the portable phone from the Defendant; (c) voluntarily withdrawn a large amount of KRW 5,500,000,000 deposited in the physical card under the name of another; and (d) recently, the Defendant could not commit the phishing crime without securing prior withdrawals; and (c) in addition, the Defendant was aware of the fact that his act constitutes the phishing crime; and (d) there was a functional control over the phishing crime of this case; and (e) the Defendant, in collusion with telephone financial aid staff, including the above president, received 5,00,000 won from 4 victims as stated in paragraph (b) of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment of the court below, by receiving 5,00,000 won from 1.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the degree of defendant's participation is excessive is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. 50,00 won (Evidence No. 14), 110,00 won (Evidence No. 15, No. 15) issued by the Bank of Korea, which was confiscated by misunderstanding the legal principles, constitute the stolen goods acquired by the Defendant from the victims, and thus, the Defendant is required to return the stolen goods to the victims under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. (1) In order for a joint principal offender to be established under Article 30 of the Criminal Act of the relevant legal doctrine, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the common intent as a subjective element, and the intention of joint processing is recognized as another person’s crime.