In addition, since the fraud crime A and B committed was committed on March 12, 2010, which was subsidized by the Hamp group, the defendant's act of remitting money to the account of the Hampon cannot be punished as a aiding and abetting crime because it constitutes a so-called ex post facto crime.

Therefore, the lower court, which found the facts charged of this case and convicted the Defendant, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. With regard to the assertion that money was leased, the Defendant stated in the police that “The Defendant did not have saws during the proceeding and did not work for 54 million won, and received 54 million won from A was erroneous, and that “A was a subsidy, and there was no money for 54 million won.” The Defendant stated that A was a subsidy, and that “A was returned without any choice, even if all of the deposits were deposited to one’s own account,” and that “A shall deposit KRW 40 million in the passbook for the reason that 40,82 million was returned to A to the head of the Tong for the company’s operation.” The Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant should give more KRW 5 million,000,000,000 to A, and that he did not receive any money.”

In light of the above, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have lent the above KRW 4,082,00 to A.

B. As to the assertion that it is merely an ex post facto crime and is not an assistant crime, the lower court’s judgment that the act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender before or during the commission of the principal offender’s act is not an assistant crime, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the so-called ex post facto aid after the principal offender’s crime is completed.