A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (the aid and abetting the forgery of a private document and the use of a falsified document) the Defendant did not know that G et al. forged a “certificate of a criminal trial against the U.S.”, and did not intend to assist G et al.., and the mere act of aiding and abetting the issuance of a document does not constitute aiding

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In determining the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct or indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender while knowing that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, the so-called aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender and the principal offender’s act is an act that meets the requirements for composition. However, inasmuch as such intentional act is an in-depth fact, it is inevitable to prove by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relation with the principal offender in light of the nature of the object in a case where the defendant denies it, and the principal offender’s intention in the crime of aiding and abetting is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by

As long as the principal offender is aware that he/she is committing a crime, it is not necessary to know who is the principal offender in this case, either indirectly or directly, or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do653, Apr. 10, 2008). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the instant case, i.e., (i) the Defendant had been in collusion with G, etc. on August 2012, 2012, which was before the crime related to proving the attempted criminal case of this case.