The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

A fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) The Defendant, who was introduced by the branch in the process of finding out the loan related to the deposit money, merely transferred or withdrawn the money deposited in the Defendant’s account and delivered it to the deposited funds to the deposited funds to the deposited funds members by hearing the words that he would have good credit by accumulating the transaction performance from the person who misrepresented the lending staff; and (b) the Defendant was unaware of the fact that he was able to assist the singing crime through the Defendant’s act, the lower court convicted the Defendant; and (c) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

② Even if the sentencing was found guilty, the sentence imposed by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, 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, so-called aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the principal offender should have the principal offender’s intent as to the so-called aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender’s commission and that 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 aided and abetting, 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, etc.). The defendant is at the lower court.