The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) as the Defendant had dolusent awareness that his act is used as a means of committing the crime as stated in the facts charged in this case, the Defendant’s intent and the principal offender’s intent are recognized; and (b) the Defendant’s act does not constitute a failed aiding and abetting act or an attempted aiding and abetting act,

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

(A) The appellate brief submitted by a prosecutor on December 20, 2019 is written as shown on the ground of appeal only on the ground of mistake of facts, but the appellate court pointed out the legal evaluation of the defendant's act, and thus, it is judged as the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles). 2.

A. In light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constitutes “the act of aiding and abetting or aiding and abetting a person who was unable to commit a crime,” or “the act of the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and making him deposit money in the bank account of the Defendant,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Moreover, the Defendant attempted to withdraw money from the account of this case and failed to bring the intent into a report by the bank staff. In addition, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case on the ground that the Defendant did not have any penal provision as to the so-called “the act of aiding and abetting a person who was unable to commit a crime,” or “the act of aiding and abetting a person who was not easy to commit a crime,” which constitutes “the act of aiding and abetting or attempted to commit a crime.”

B. The judgment of the court below was stated in 1.