A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles merely intended to withdraw and deliver cash in order to obtain a loan from a lending brokerage company, but did not fully recognize the fact that it was a refund of the crime of Bophishing. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have had the intention to assist and abetting the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and forty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine requires the intention of the so-called aiding and abetting the principal offender to practice, and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, inasmuch as such intent is in depth, in a case where the Defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intent given the nature of the object, and there is no other way to reasonably determine the link of facts based on the degree of strict observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule. In addition, in a crime of aiding and abetting, the principal offender’s intent does not require to reasonably recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to obtain dolusence or predictability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9500, Dec. 8, 2011). In full view of the following facts or circumstances duly admitted and duly examined by the lower court, even if the Defendant did not know the content or method of the crime of aiding and abetting the name of a person who was not aware of the intent or method of the crime.