The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendant, even though the Defendant could have acknowledged that he/she transferred the physical card, which is a means of access, to the criminal organization of Bophishing crimes.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Even after the instant account was deposited in the account on March 3, 2017 due to loan fraud, the instant account was used as it was without the suspension of transaction. The instant check was also used in connection with the instant account until the Defendant reported the loss on May 2, 2017.

After March 3, 2017, the instant account was used as the Defendant’s wage account. On April 22, 2017, the instant account reached KRW 8,309,476.

After March 3, 2017, the Defendant does not seem to change the password of the instant account or the instant postal card.

However, at least on March 7, 2017, the Defendant, at the time of the call with the police officer in charge of the instant case, was well aware of the circumstances used for loan fraud. If the Defendant, on March 2, 2017, transferred the instant physical card to a loan fraud assistant, he/she was immediately subject to measures to suspend the use of the instant physical card, such as reporting of loss, even in order to prevent the Defendant from withdrawing the money deposited into the instant account irrespective of the crime (e.g., Defendant’s salary) by using the instant physical card. However, the Defendant did not file a report of loss before May 2, 2017, and the instant physical card was carried out as above.