The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud 1) The defendant thought that the defendant is merely a mere heart, but did not know that the delivery of money from the victim was involved in the phishing fraud. 2) In the event of the uttering of the above investigation document, the defendant was unaware of the fact that the certificate of full payment of the obligation received from B was a forged document, and thus, the intention of the uttering of the above investigation document is not recognized.

In addition, since the victim was aware that it was forged at the time when the above documents were delivered by the Defendant, it is considered that there is no possibility of undermining public credibility in the document.

Therefore, it is not guilty for any one to display a false investigation document or a false investigation document.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding fraud is established by willful negligence. It is a subjective element of the constituent element, and it is a case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the perception of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime. In order to have had willful negligence, it is necessary not only to have the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime but also to have the intention to deliberate on the possibility of the occurrence of the crime.

In light of how the general public can assess the possibility of the occurrence of the relevant crime without depending on the statement of the offender as to whether the offender was aware of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, the psychological conditions should be ratified from the perspective of the offender, taking into account how the general public can assess the possibility of the occurrence of the crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9497, Jan. 14, 2016). B) The Defendant asserted to the same effect in the lower court, and the lower court’s judgment is the Defendant and the defense counsel.