The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant was aware of the illegality of his act; (b) the Defendant received instructions only through F or other message without directly communicating the principal offender who directed withdrawal; and (c) did not hear explanation about the name or location of the company to which he belongs; and (d) was asked the Bank employees to make a false statement about the purpose of cash withdrawal; and (c) it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had doluence that he was involved in the Bosing crime at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of a fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The act of aiding and abetting under the relevant legal doctrine 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 aiding and abetting the principal offender to commit a crime and the principal offender’s intent to commit an act that constitutes the elements of a crime is required. However, such intent is an in-depth fact, and if the principal offender denies such act, it should be proved by means of proving indirect facts that are highly related to the principal offender’s intent

In this case, what constitutes an indirect fact with considerable relevance shall be reasonably determined based on normal empirical rule by using close observation and analysis records. The intention of a principal offender required for aiding and abetting and abetting and abetting do not require to be aware of the specific contents of a crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to doluence or prediction.

Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, 2018 Jeondo54, 55, 2018 Guidedo55, 2018 Report6, 2018Mo2593 Decided September 13, 2018.