A. Defendant 1) The Defendant did not have known the fact that the instant crime was one of the crimes of Bophishing, or that there was no misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

In other words, the defendant has no intention to do so.

B) The Defendant’s aiding and abetting act was limited to attempted crimes, and thus cannot be punished. The Defendant committed the instant crime against Bosing State, and thus, insofar as the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed to have induced or strengthened the principal offender’s resolution, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act constitutes mental aiding and abetting. (2) The lower court’s punishment of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment of the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine

) In light of the fact that some victims knew of the fact that the above amount of damage was “the money to obtain a loan,” and that such collection of damage was awarded several times (Evidence No. 98, 2. As above, considering the fact that the Defendant himself was aware that the act of collecting money was due to an unlegal loan, the Defendant’s assertion that the crime of this case was merely a collection of money related to the illegal sports soil is difficult to obtain, the Defendant was committed the crime of this case.