The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In full view of the fact that the Defendant used another person's name in the process of collecting money from the Defendant on January 15, 2020, January 17, 2020, and January 21, 2020, when collecting money, the Defendant entered several third person's resident registration numbers while transferring the collected money without passbook, received allowances equivalent to a certain percentage of the collected money, and received waiting allowances even if he did not collect the damaged money, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware that he was involved in the crime of Bophishing by the deceased and M&A. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part on the ground that the Defendant's intentional act is not recognized, which constitutes a crime of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, it is extremely difficult to recover damage.

Therefore, even though it is possible to collect money from the defendant in accordance with the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property (hereinafter "Corruption Property Confiscation Act"), the court below did not order the collection of money. Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) in light of the fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of mistake of facts; (b) on January 15, 2020; (c) January 17, 2020; and (d) January 21, 2020, based on the content of the Defendant’s work or the level of the proceeds presented, it appears that the Defendant had an opportunity to doubt whether the Defendant received an instruction from the person who was unaware of name was a normal business or not; and (d) whether the Defendant was illegal. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, thereby allowing the Defendant to acquire the money that the Defendant iced the loan.