The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

No. 1 [Carrying (B)] and No. 1 of the seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, without awareness of the entire fraud crime of this case, merely collected and delivered articles without awareness, cannot be deemed to have committed the fraud of this case in collusion with a person with no name. The Defendant’s attempted fraud as stated in Article 2 of the facts charged is a crime committed while the Defendant did not have any responsibility for such fraud.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) In a case where the Defendant denies the intent, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, inasmuch as it is difficult to prove the criminal intent itself.

Unlike the gross negligence, the willful negligence of one kind of intention is the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and the intention of internal deliberation to allow the risk of the crime to occur.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., the Defendant’s statement, based on the general public’s psychological condition when considering how to assess the possibility of criminal facts if it were the general public based on specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act that was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the actor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). In so doing, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, namely, communications that the Defendant was “O” from a person whose name was not known.