A. A. There must be both the intention of aiding and abetting a mistake of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles and the principal offender’s intention. However, the Defendant did not recognize the principal offender’s intention, i.e., the content of the Bophishing crime, since he had long been aware of the general knowledge about Bophishing, which is a new type of crime, due to an efficial disorder, or a efficial disorder.

As such, not guilty should be pronounced.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, the so-called aiding and abetting that aids and abets the principal offender’s commission and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, inasmuch as such intentional act is an in-depth fact, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts that are highly related to the principal offender’s intent in light of the nature of an object. In this case, what constitutes indirect facts that are highly related, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using an in-depth observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule. In addition, the principal offender’s intent in an aiding and abetting crime is not required to recognize the details of a crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate dolusent perception or expectation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005).