A. According to the evidence submitted by the mistake of facts with respect to Defendant B, Defendant B was sufficiently recognized as aiding and abetting the instant crime by facilitating the instant crime, since Defendant B had the occurrence of the instant traffic accident and had the psychological stability with respect to A from the time immediately after the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, or had the intent to strengthen A’s resolution of escape.

Nevertheless, the lower court which acquitted Defendant B of all the facts charged of this case on the charge of this case, erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant A (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, two years of social service, 120 hours of order to attend a compliance driving lecture, 40 hours of an order to attend a compliance driving lecture) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The summary of the facts charged in this part of the judgment on the grounds of appeal against Defendant B (1) was the date and time indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the person who was on the top of C rocketing car driven by A at a place, and the person who was on the top of C rocketing car driven by A, and who did not take measures to report an accident to the police station or put up a vehicle to A in order to assist the occurrence of a traffic accident as stated in the facts charged, and in order for A to flee along with A, and park A to park on a large way, and aids and abets A to commit the crime by stating that “I, at the same time and time as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, are set up on the alleyway.”

(2) The lower court’s final crime refers to aiding and abetting a principal offender before or during the commission of the principal offender’s act, thereby facilitating the commission of the principal offender’s act. As such, so-called ex post facto protection after the completion of the principal offender’s crime cannot be deemed as an

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do122 delivered on April 27, 1982). The lower court based on the evidence and the Defendant’s legal statement submitted by the prosecutor, and Defendant B sit at the chief of the police station without any speech at the time when Defendant B gets involved in a traffic accident and escaped.