The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, mental or physical disorder, and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant received the passbook, etc. upon D’s request, and delivered it to the person who was named, and did not know that at the time of delivery of the passbook, etc., the Defendant was used for the above passbook. There was no intention to facilitate such crime.

Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was charged with aiding and abetting fraud or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the criminal intent of aiding and abetting fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weak disorder.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (2,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The intent of the principal offender in the judgment of aiding and abetting as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is not required to identify the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but is sufficient to dolusence or predictability.

There is no need to specifically recognize the time, place, object, etc. of a crime committed by a principal offender, and there is no need to clearly recognize who is the principal offender.

Based on these legal principles, the following circumstances are determined based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, namely, ① the Defendant’s nameless person at least stated a deposit passbook, etc. as stated in the facts charged prior to the opening of the deposit passbook, etc., to the effect that “the Defendant should not use it for singing.” This appears to be a flexible circumstance where the Defendant had been aware that the deposit passbook, etc. was to be used for singing crimes, and ② the Defendant’s objection to the purport that the above deposit passbook, etc. was known to be used for real estate, soil, etc., is to be used at least in the case of the Defendant’s objection suit.