All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In order to establish a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the principal offender ought to be aware of the essential elements, and the Defendant was not aware of the essential elements of the relevant fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the fraud of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to aiding and abetting the defendant.

2) Even if the court below’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service order) is found guilty against the defendant, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine 1) Since aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime, an aiding and abetting offender must have the principal offender’s intent to assist and abetting the principal offender and that the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that meets the requirements for organizing the principal offender. However, such intent is in fact, so in a case where the Defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the principal offender due to the nature of the object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the strict observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do963, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, the principal offender’s intent in aiding and abetting is not required to recognize the details of a crime realized by the principal offender, and there is sufficient perception or predictability (see Supreme Court Decision 202282.282.).