The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, like the FX business, stated the reasons for appeal submitted by the defense counsel in accordance with the FX business’s proposal as “7 million won,” but this appears to be a clerical error in the FX business amounting to six million won.

B sent to B, and the project referred to by B did not run properly, and thus, the return of the investment amount was demanded.

In that sense, B and D are not possible to withdraw from G Co., Ltd. which is another branch of the FX business.

In order for the Defendant to withdraw D’s money, the Defendant was to return the Defendant’s investment money to that money, and the Defendant was affiliated with the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant withdrawn and distributed the amount of damages.

The Defendant did not have any intention to facilitate the criminal conduct of phishing fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s confession at the court of first instance claiming the misunderstanding of facts alone is not sufficient to doubt the probative value or credibility of the confession, solely on the grounds that the confession at the court of first instance differs from the legal statement in the appellate

In determining the credibility of a confession, it is not possible to judge whether the contents of the confession are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confession, what is the background leading up to the confession, and whether there is any conflict or inconsistency with the confessions among other evidence than the confessions (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556, Apr. 29, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant led to a confession after sufficiently reviewing the facts charged in this case with the assistance of the counsel from the state court in the court of the court of the court, and sought the preference in sentencing. The defendant appears to have been aware of the meaning of the confessions in the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court, and there is a reasonable doubt as to the other party's discretion, motive, and circumstance.