Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not have any intention to commit the crime of aiding and abetting fraud is erroneous.

2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged were acquitted on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning.

In addition, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the Defendant’s withdrawal of money deposited in his account and delivered it to the collection book, ② the Defendant did not receive an amount to the extent that it can be seen as the Defendant’s share, such as commission, and ② the Defendant’s withdrawal of money deposited in another’s account to conceal the identity of the Defendant, unlike the Defendant’s withdrawal of money deposited in his account under the name of another’s name, did not make any effort to conceal the identity of the Defendant merely withdrawn and deliver the money deposited in his/her own account. The Defendant did not appear to have expressed his/her identity and did not have any intent to facilitate the Defendant’s fraud even if he/she did not make any effort to conceal the identity of the Defendant. ③ The Defendant appears to have considered that the process was different from ordinary loans by receiving money from his/her own account and delivered it to the collection book. However, considering the Defendant’s academic background or unlawful loans that the Defendant intended to obtain, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone appears to have been aware of the Defendant’s fraud.