The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have the fiduciary position to prevent F from infringing upon the victim’s parking lot and installing a cras support team within the said parking lot, and that F did not seem to have engaged in such conduct. Therefore, there is no fact that the Defendant assisted F to do so.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment (to the extent of supplement in case of legitimate grounds for appeal). 2.

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant was notified by the victim D of the Seoul Jongno-gu E parking lot around September 20, 2016 as the head of the site site of the Jongno-gu Seoul Housing Construction Corporation (Seoul Jongno-gu) on September 20, 2016, even if the Defendant was notified by the victim D of the request for the horse

9. 24. 24. In order to promptly complete the construction work, F, without knowledge of the fact, took the form of setting up and operating a cater support unit in the victim’s parking lot, aiding and abetting the cater to intrude into the victim’s residence.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court.

(c)

1) According to the Criminal Act, aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the principal’s implementation, and is established not only by commission but also by omission. In a case where a person who is legally obligated to act in order to prevent the occurrence of infringement of legally protected interests prohibited by the Criminal Act, has been able to easily prevent the occurrence of the result by performing his/her duty, and fails to perform his/her duty, such omission is equivalent to infringement of legally protected interests by commission, and thus, has the same value as that of infringement of legally protected interests by commission.