A. Defendant 1 by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant merely introduced C a part-time job upon B’s request, and did not know that B was committing Bophishing crimes.

After committing a crime against the victim F, the Defendant came to know that at around 20:00 on February 19, 2018, C was involved in the Bohishing crime against the victim F.

immediately after that, the Defendant only told C to the effect that “I will no longer commit the crime of licensing,” or “Isia,” and did not mean C to the effect that I will continue to commit the crime of licensing.

Therefore, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant had an intentional or competitive relationship with regard to the crime of Bosing in this case.

In particular, C came to know of the fact that “the Defendant was leading to a criminal act of singing the Defendant,” or that he was involved in a criminal act of singing the Defendant at around 20:00 on February 19, 2018, and said that the Defendant “Nehhhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn?” at the court of the lower court

The testimony of ‘the testimony' reversed the statement to the investigation agency.

In the end, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence of the lower court against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In full view of the legal principles and the following facts and circumstances, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant, prior to the instant crime, was aware of the fact that he/she was involved in the instant crime, at least dolusently aware of the fact that he/she was involved in the instant crime, and that the Defendant ordered C to continue committing the instant crime even though he/she clearly known the fact after February 19, 20