around 13:02 on February 28, 2018, the Defendant released KRW 5 million from the phone call of a telephone finance fraud operator who provides a low interest rate loan to the C bank account in the name of the Defendant, following the telephone account of the victim E, at the location of Heung-gu C bank located in Heung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City B.

On the 26th of the same month, the Defendant was in a state that he would be exempted from withdrawing if the company funds are deposited to the extent that it is possible to grant a loan in the absence of account transaction details while counseling with a member in charge of telephone financing fraud and G dialogue.

As above, the Defendant: (a) withdrawn KRW 5 million from the amount of damage remitted by the victim E; (b) and (c) prevented the Defendant from committing the crime by delivering the amount of damage to the deceased and wounded on the same day at H in front of the branch of the said CD branch; and (d) by delivering the amount of damage to the deceased and wounded on the same day.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel only withdrawn and delivered the money from the account opened in the name of the Defendant according to the direction of the name and the Buddhist winner that the transaction performance should be created in order to obtain the loan of the gist of the assertion, and there was no perception that the Defendant did not help the Defendant commit the phishing fraud.

B. Determination 1) Under the Criminal Act, aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. The so-called aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender, and the principal offender’s intention is an act that constitutes an act that satisfies the requirements of the principal offender.

However, in the case of aiding and abetting, the intention of the principal offender is not required to be aware of the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but is sufficient to dolusence or prediction (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2628, Jun. 28, 2012, etc.). However, in the criminal trial, the recognition of the crime is likely to lead to a judge's conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.