All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each written statement submitted after the lapse of the period for appeal filed by Defendant A is considered only to the extent it supplements the grounds for appeal.

1) In fact, Defendant A was aware that the delivery of loan-related documents was made only at ordinary charges with the knowledge that the delivery was made, and the delivery was made for the so-called “scaming” crime.

In addition, the card and passbook delivered by the defendant A was arrested and seized by the defendant B, and it was not used for fraud committed against the victim I.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant A guilty of aiding and abetting violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and aiding and abetting fraud.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A, which was committed by the lower court to Defendant A, is unreasonable because the sentence imposed on Defendant B (a prison term of six months, a suspended sentence of two years, a community service work time of 120 hours) is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to aiding and abetting in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, aiding and abetting in criminal law 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. Therefore, aiding and abetting in violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act should have the intention of the principal offender as to aiding and abetting in the commission of the principal offender and the conduct of the principal offender as to aiding and abetting in the commission of an

However, inasmuch as such intention is an in-depth fact, in a case where the defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention due to the nature of the object, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention is based on normal empirical rule.