A. The prosecutor's defendant B introduced the defendant A to the public official even after the defendant A received the request from the Eul, and thereby, the act of the defendant B constitutes an aiding and abetting act that facilitates the defendant A's act. Therefore, if the court below judged that the defendant B's act did not constitute a co-principal of the good offices and aiding and abetting act, it shall be judged whether the defendant B constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting act. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant B without omitting the decision on this part, is erroneous in the misapprehension of law or the misconception of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A merely sought advice from the Dong Fee who had worked in the Daegu branch of the Asset Management Corporation upon D’s request, but did not intervene in the instant case. Defendant A did not demand money or goods from D in relation to the instant case, but only changed the transportation cost and food level from Busan to Daegu. However, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the prosecutor's incomplete hearing or an assertion of mistake of facts is acknowledged as a minor criminal facts that are prosecuted within the scope recognized as identical to the facts charged, in light of the progress of the trial, etc., if it does not give substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, it can be recognized as a minor criminal facts without changing the indictment. In such a case, the facts charged as a co-principal can be recognized as an aiding and abetting crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004). However, as seen below, as seen in the judgment on the ancillary facts