All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and a fine of 1,00,000 won.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (as to the judgment of the third court), the Defendant did not recognize that his own lending account was used for the crime of Bophishing, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. On the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (with respect to all of the judgment of the court below), the punishment (the imprisonment of the court below 8 months, the fine of the court below 1,00,000, and the imprisonment of the court below 3: one year and two months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this Court tried to examine the appeal cases of the second and third judgment of the court of first instance by combining each other. Each of the judgment below against the defendant constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is, since each of the offenses against the defendant is concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was aware of what the scams were done at the time of the prosecutor's investigation, received the letter of lending the account, and then lent his account to the extent that his account could be used at the scamsing, and the fact that he stated that he lent his card and account even though he thought that his account could be used for the scamsing, due to the need of the Apha hospital, he could be used for the scamsing. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is rejected since he could be sufficiently convicted of the charge of aiding and abetting fraud against the defendant.

4. Conclusion.