Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part, 2, and 3 shall be reversed, and the compensation order part of the judgment of second instance shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the misconception of facts (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance), Defendant A and B’s penal records or relationship with Defendant B, etc., it is reasonable to view that Defendant A, at the time of the transfer of the means of access to Defendant B by Defendant B, the said Defendants had dolusent awareness that the means of access issued to I was used for the crime of Bosing and would be easy to commit the crimes of Bosing. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of the facts. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (for Defendant A: 8., suspended sentence, 2 years of community service, 160 hours of imprisonment, 4: Imprisonment with prison labor, 2 years of suspended execution, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of community service) sentenced by the court below of first instance on unfair sentencing

B. Defendant J (as to the judgment of the court of first instance) Nos. 2 and 3 (as to the judgment of the court of first instance, imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and imprisonment with prison labor for two years) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act regarding the allegation of 1 mistake of facts concerning the judgment of the court of first instance refers to an act of direct or indirect that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. Therefore, the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the principal offender is an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, in the case of aiding and abetting and abetting, the principal offender’s intention does not require to be aware of the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient for dolusence or prediction.

However, the burden of proving the existence of intention is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, so that there is no such evidence.