A. The Defendant of mistake of facts only delivered money by means of a statement that he could obtain a loan by raising credit rating from a person with no name, and there was no intention to facilitate the commission of the act while recognizing the crime of Bophishing fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. A. A crime of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal of a crime must have the principal’s intent to commit an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, since such intent is in fact, if the defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention given the nature of the object. In this context, what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance with the intention, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule. Moreover, in the case of a crime of aiding and abetting and abetting, the principal’s intent does not require to recognize the detailed contents of the crime realized by the principal of the crime, but it is sufficient to have dolusence or predictability.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9500, Dec. 8, 2011).

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant was found to have facilitate the recognition or prediction of the crime of the Mesing fraud in dolusent manner.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(1) A defendant, even though he/she has deposited money directly in an individual account at a general bank and again withdraws money and enhance credit, is in itself an exceptional way.