A. According to all circumstances as to aiding and abetting fraud using each computer, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, despite being aware that the Defendant was able to engage in some process of committing so-called “scaming” (hereinafter referred to as “scaming”), has been aided and abetting the principal offender’s act as well as aiding and abetting the Defendant’s act as the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, in light of the fact that the Defendant permitted the photographing of the passbook, thereby informing the nameless person of the account number, and that the Defendant borrowed the passbook to the nameless person in a practical sense in light of the fact that the account number was deposited between 10 minutes and 15 minutes, the Defendant lent the passbook to the nameless person.

It is reasonable to see it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As the prosecutor pointed out the grounds for appeal regarding aiding and abetting the use of each computer, etc. on the grounds of appeal, it is not persuasive that the defendant's act of withdrawing and delivering the remitted money from individuals in light of the defendant's age and social experience does not fall within the scope of the reduction of large enterprises. The defendant received 2.15 million won in return for the withdrawal and withdrawal of cash three times or three times at short time, and there was a part of the defendant's own suspicion in a series of processes in which the defendant withdraws and delivers cash only three daily days.

Taking into account the time limit, the Defendant aided the principal offender’s conduct while recognizing the crime of Bosing.

There is room for doubt.

However, the following circumstances, which the court below explained on the grounds of innocence, are acknowledged by the records, i.e., the defendant, “C.”