All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts is that there was a call from an organization office located in the city in the People’s Republic of China for collecting information or means of access to financial transaction account by calls from the Republic of China. However, the organization of the Defendant and the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, did not commit so so as to commit the so-called “Singishing” fraud, such as requesting information from financial transaction account to another organization, and demanding a transfer via phone in Korea. Nevertheless, the court of first instance recognized that the Defendant conspired to commit fraud as stated in the facts charged and sentenced the Defendant guilty of fraud, so the judgment of the first instance court is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, and thus, the judgment of the first instance court on the Defendant of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) The sentence of the first instance judgment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. The first instance court’s decision was clearly erroneous in the determination of evidence of the first instance court when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s decision after its ex post facto and ex post facto determination, in the absence of a new objective reason that could affect the formation of evidence in the trial process.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without such exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case was examined in the first instance court and the Defendant asserted to the effect similar to this part of the grounds for appeal. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, stating the grounds for its determination at the bottom of “a summary of evidence”.