A. In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, the Defendant knew that he was engaged in the debt collection business, and did not have the awareness that he was involved in the phishing crime, there was no intention to assist the Defendant in fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and forfeiture) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. Under the relevant legal doctrine, an act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to a direct or indirect act that facilitates 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 the principal offender and the principal offender’s act is an act that meets the requirements for the organization of the 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 an indirect fact that has considerable relevance with an intention given the nature of an object. In such a case, there is no other method than reasonably determining the link of fact by using an in-depth observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

B. In the case of a aiding and abetting offender, the intent of the principal offender does not require to be aware of the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and dolusent perception or predictability is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018, etc.). (b) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as otherwise alleged in this part, and the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, did not have any negligence that facilitate the Defendant’s commission of phishing fraud.

the number of persons.