The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing and aiding and abetting misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant recognized the misunderstanding of facts and aiding and abetting phishing as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

However, the judgment of the court below which recognized the defendant's liability as a co-principal in spite of the fact that the defendant's intention of co-processing is not recognized, and the degree of the defendant's participation cannot be seen as a co-principal beyond aiding and abetting.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not required under the law to jointly process two or more co-offenders, but only a combination of intent to realize a crime through the joint processing of crimes. If a combination of intent is made by either two or more co-offenders successively or implicitly, a conspiracy relationship is established if such conspiracy is made, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of implementation are subject to criminal liability as co-principal against other co-offenders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997). Such intent of co-processing is insufficient solely with the recognition of another person’s crime and without restraint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200). However, even if the co-offenders did not need to obtain prior approval of a criminal plan, it is sufficient and specific that they either share the constituent elements or share the act related to the act of deception among each co-offenders (see, 2008.71).208).