사기방조
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant remitted money to the account under the name of several persons designated by the person in whose name the Defendant was not the victim; (b) the Defendant’s deposit was conducted several times; and (c) the Defendant was investigated twice by police under the charge of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, prior to the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was aware at the time of entering and leaving the account that he would facilitate
must be viewed.
Nevertheless, the defendant has accumulated the transaction records necessary for the loan.
The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the possibility of deceiving could not be ruled out is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.
2. Determination
A. Under the relevant legal principles, an act of assistance under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender while knowing that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, an aiding and abetting offender must have the principal offender’s intent as to aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender and the fact that the principal offender’s act constitutes an act meeting the requirements for organization of the principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Do198, Dec. 9, 1986). Since such intent is in depth, in a case where the Defendant denies it, it is bound to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the intent of the object due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance in this case, the connection of the fact ought to be reasonably determined based on the close observation or analysis power based on the normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4031, Jan. 29, 199).