The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the content of the Financial Fraud Prevention Diagnosis sheet prepared by the Defendant in the course of withdrawing large cash; (b) the content of the statement made by the investigative agency; and (c) the transaction method instructed by the Bosing staff; (b) the Defendant did not verify the identity of the other party to the cash; and (c) the Defendant made a false statement of the purpose of the money withdrawn from the bank, the Defendant may be

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant, who did not have the same type of punishment and did not have superior knowledge or experience in loan transactions, was aware of, or could have predicted, that the loan by a method of law was false, and that his act was not intended if he knew that he was a refund of the crime of Bosing, and that there was no special motive for the loan, and that there was a need to accept the criminal punishment following the act, and that there was no special motive for this, the Defendant’s act was related to the crime of Bosing.

The perception of the fact that a person receives a loan in an unexistent form by creating a non-existent transaction performance is aware that he/she is involved in the illegality of any content different in essence from the content of the singishing crime. Thus, even if the defendant was aware that he/she was receiving a loan in a form different from that of the singishing crime, such perception alone cannot be readily concluded that the act of withdrawing money deposited in his/her account by recognizing or forecasting that it was remitted as a result of the singishing, such as the singishing, thereby facilitating the crime.