The judgment of the court below (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding the legal principles (the acquittal part in the grounds) and the withdrawal of the fraud through the crime of Bosing is an act with a core meaning in the crime of Bosing, and an act with a functional control over the crime of co-principal, and thus, the defendant should be deemed to have been fully aware of and participated in the crime of Bosing a person who has failed to obtain name

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the Defendant constitutes a co-principal, not an aiding and abetting crime, on the premise that the Defendant constitutes a co-principal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Defendant (1) In order to obtain a loan by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant did not intend to withdraw money from the Defendant’s account after receiving a proposal from a person who has failed to keep the transaction records, and did not intend to take part in the Defendant’s act of singing out a person who has failed to obtain a name.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to assist the Defendant in committing an offense of aiding and abetting the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The lower court determined that, in light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of withdrawing the money, deemed that the said money could be the damage amount of licensing, and that the amount, time, frequency, etc. of withdrawal was different from that of receiving an instruction from the person under whose name the Defendant had been instructed, the Defendant had the intent to allow the Defendant, recognizing that the Defendant was an intentional act of aiding and abetting at least, i.e., aiding and abetting the act of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s act of aiding and abetting the