Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

A. Since the Defendant thought that the act of collecting and delivering cash was the relevant work of a financial service company, but did not have the awareness that he/she helps to commit the singishing, there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts under the relevant legal doctrine refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of the principal offender while knowing the fact that the principal offender is committing the crime. The aiding and abetting is established not only when the principal offender is aided and abetting in the process of committing the crime, but also when the principal offender was aided and abetting in the future and facilitating the commission of the principal offender prior to the commencement of the commission. Furthermore, the so-called aiding and abetting in aiding and abetting in the conduct of the principal offender and the principal offender’s act should have the principal offender’s intent to commit the act that constitutes the elements of the crime. In addition, in the case of aiding and abetting in the principal offender, the principal offender’s intent does not require to be aware of the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to have dolusent recognition or predictability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do7886, Nov. 10, 2016).

① Although the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s job seeking, such as job offers via the Kakaox, interviews through the Kakaox, and consultations on working conditions, the Defendant was employed by the “C team leader” without any specific employment interview, in addition to delivering some documents and photographs related to identification to the “C team leader” in the Kakaox message.