The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant pays 7,000,000 won to the applicant through fraud.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) thought that the Defendant reported the text message sent by the team leader in one name I and received fees on behalf of him; and (b) thought that the victims received fees, the Defendant did not recognize that the victims were involved in the phishing crime, even if do not do so, did not recognize that the victims received money from the Defendant’s account.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) Since aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime, the so-called aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender and the intention of the principal offender as to the fact that the act constitutes an act that satisfies the requirements for organization of the principal offender.

However, inasmuch as such intent is an in-depth fact, in a case where a defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having considerable relevance with an intention given the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance with an intention should be determined based on normal empirical rule, and there is no other way to reasonably determine the link of facts by using a close observation or analysis power.

In addition, in the case of assistive crime, the intention of the principal offender is not required to be aware of the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to dolusent perception or predictability (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005). 2) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the guilty of the facts charged in this case is recognized.