The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing that the principal offense of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are illegal (tax evasion or illegal Internet gambling), it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was aware or predicted of the content of the crime of Bophishing. Therefore, the intention of aiding and abetting is not recognized.

However, as the Defendant thought that he could be involved in the principal offender’s tax evasion or illegal Internet gambling crime, and did not recognize that he only performed the remittance business requested by the principal offender, and did not have any awareness that he was performing the act of remitting the amount of damage caused by scam, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the court below acknowledged the defendant's willful negligence as an aiding and abetting crime, such as each criminal fact stated in the judgment of the court below, on the premise that the criminal intent of aiding and abetting fraud is recognized, insofar as it knew that he/she has been engaged in an illegal act (tax evasion or illegal Internet gambling), the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The act of aiding and abetting a mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles under the Criminal Act refers to a direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, the so-called “act of aiding and abetting a principal offender” and the “act of the principal offender” as to aiding and abetting the principal offender’s commission and the fact that the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes an element of a crime. However, inasmuch as such intention is in fact, if the principal offender denies it, it is inevitable to prove by means of proving

At this time, what constitutes an indirect fact with considerable relevance is normal.