A. Defendant 1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 1 had the principal offender’s intent to assist the commission of the principal offender and that the act of the principal offender constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. As the Defendant was aware that the account in the name of D and M was used for money laundering, and did not know that it was used in withdrawing the amount of damage caused by Bosing, the lower court determined that the Defendant constitutes an aiding and abetting, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aiding and abetting, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aiding and abetting. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on aiding and abetting, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the fraud related to Bosing among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion of the reasoning of the prosecutor 1, it appears that the Defendant could have easily known that the financial transaction method of the instant Defendant was related to the criminal act, and that the accomplice C, an accomplice, among the crimes, appears to have contacted with the Defendant’s accomplices through the commission of the organization of Bosingscam through the Defendant and the Defendant, and the Defendant appears to have ordered the withdrawal of cash with C and the Defendant, and delivered the withdrawal of cash to C immediately after the withdrawal of cash, which could have been delivered to C, even though the Defendant could have been deemed to have committed a functional control over the act of Boscaming. However, the lower court recognized only the Defendant’s aiding and abetting, and acquitted this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the degree of the Defendant’s commission of the criminal act, etc. or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the joint principal.