As a result, the defendant aided and abetted the crime of violation of D's Music Industry Promotion Act.

2. In relation to the existence of an act in favor of two or more persons making a judgment, the provisions of the General Provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices or aiding and abetting cannot be applied.

In the instant case, Articles 34(2) and 22(1)4 of the Music Industry Promotion Act, which apply to D, merely refer to a provision that punishs a third party to conduct an act of acting as a broker by placing a third party on the middle, so as to facilitate negotiations or awards between the parties to a loan agreement by a music practice room business operator. In light of the fact that there is no provision that “a person who has requested a music practice room business operator to arrange a loan,” or “a person who has requested a music practice room business operator to provide a loan,” or “a person who has become the other party to a entertainment practice with a music practice place to provide a loan by drinking alcohol, singing, or dancing,” in light of the fact that there is no provision that “a person who has requested a music practice hall business operator to provide a loan to a music practice hall business operator,” or that there is no provision

The provisions of the general provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices cannot be applied to the "person who has requested to offer a loan to a singing practice room business operator."

In the instant case, even if the Defendant’s act constituted a crime of good faith, D’s act, which is a singing practice master, may be evaluated as an act of requesting a loan to provide a loan to the Defendant, or as an act of facilitating a loan, and the Defendant’s act can only be deemed as an act of acting as a principal offender of the crime of good faith.

As seen earlier.