All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of misunderstanding the facts, the Defendant, through AY, was aware that the financial team staff of B bank via AY, who was a job seeking site, engaged in the same conduct as criminal facts, and did not per se recognize that he was involved in the phishing fraud.

2) Sentencing of the lower judgment’s respective sentences (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor in the first instance court, one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor in the second instance, and one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor in the third instance) are too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentences are too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (combined hearing) is conducted prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

The judgment of the court below was sentenced to the defendant and the prosecutor appealed against this, and the appeal case against the judgment of the court below was consolidated in the trial.

Since each crime of the judgment below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is also examined below despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In relation to accomplices who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 201). In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the element of the constituent element of the crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and thus, the nature of the object cannot be objectively proved.