The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal: The Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts, established a company called “D” and recruited people who do not have been granted a loan, and did not know that D was committing a crime using the mobile phone in its name to recover the funds and opened a mobile phone to C, without knowing that D was one of the normal business partners.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the principal offender's intent to commit the violation of Telecommunications Business Act, which is the principal offender, and there was no intention to assist the defendant to facilitate it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a crime of aiding and abetting in violation of the Telecommunications Business Act is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is prohibited from using telecommunications services provided to the relevant mobile communications terminal in the name of another person by opening a mobile communications terminal that enters into a contract for the provision of telecommunications services on condition of providing or lending funds, or using telecommunications services for the collection of the relevant funds.

After establishing the company “B” as “D,” the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant collected the mobile phone in his/her name from “D,” and used it for the collection of funds. However, on May 2, 2015, the Defendant opened the I G4 mobile phone via “D” and sent the relevant mobile phone to “D” with the purpose of receiving a certain amount of money for opening the mobile phone from “D,” or obtaining rebates from opening the mobile phone via “D,” and the Defendant collected the mobile phone by opening the I G4 mobile phone via “D” on May 2, 2015, as indicated in the attached list of crimes.