A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendants’ intentional act or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of innocence.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (for each of the Defendants, six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and confiscation of Defendant A) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Defendant A (i) The act of aiding and abetting and abetting and aiding and abetting and abetting and aiding under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, the so-called aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and the principal offender’s act is an act that constitutes a requirement for the commission of a principal offender.

However, inasmuch as such intent is an in-depth fact, in a case where a defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having considerable relevance with an intention due to the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance with an intention is based on normal empirical rule, and there is no other way to reasonably determine the situation of connection with a fact by using a close observation or analysis force based on the normal empirical rule.

In addition, in the case of assistive crime, the principal offender's intent is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to dolusent perception or predictability (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2628, Jun. 28, 2012, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original instance and the trial court, if a security company carrying out the real cash transport is a suspect under suspicion circumstances, that is, if it is a security company carrying out the real cash transport as pointed out by the prosecutor, it seems that the employment standard would be very strict, but it was immediately employed without any document screening or interview except for the document submitted by e-mail, and it is a domestic security company in Korea.