A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant was unaware of the victim D, who was affiliated with B and C, and had no intention to inflict economic damage on the victim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was found to have opened two cell phones in the name of the victim for the purpose of raising sales performance, while recognizing the fact that the victim pointed out disabled persons, B and C let the victim open the cell phone, and attempted to sell the cell phone. Thus, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was able to facilitate the fraud of B and C as shown in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The instant crime of aiding and abetting the crime of fraud committed against intellectual disabled persons with the aim of raising the cell phone sales performance, is not good, nor is it agreed with the victim.

The sentence of the court below is not hot, in light of the records of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, and past convictions, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the change of the records of the case.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.