The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was merely engaged in the business of reporting short-term job advertising and ordering the non-successful winners of names, and there was no perception that it was merely limited to what was used by the organization of the Bophishing crime and that it was easy to facilitate the Bophishing crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the above assertion on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts on the ground that the defendant and the defense counsel at the court below also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal, and the court below did not recognize that the defendant's act was used as a means of committing the crime of phishing fraud, not as ordinary phishing, in full view of these circumstances, under the title of "judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the defendant performed an act of causing the unsatisf to the name of the company or its customer who instructs his/her business, or the name of the person who instructs his/her business, although he/she was not aware of his/her personal information; (ii) the fact that the defendant actually performed is different from the contents of his/her business in the first B advertisement; and (iii) simply purchased cultural products at a normal price, not at a discounted price, by withdrawing the money deposited in the Defendant’s name account in cash; and (iv) there is no benefit in such a way, so the fact that the business form is very abnormal is easily known, the judgment of the court below is justified, and it is so argued.