The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant merely thought that he was granted a loan under the law, and without knowledge of the fact that he was used for the so-called “singishing,” sent the documents, such as identification cards, to the person who introduced himself as a savings bank employee, and informed the account number.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged without the intention to aid and abetting fraud, because the defendant did not know that he was involved in the phishing crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal as to the defendant's case

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact 1) Since aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to an indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime, the so-called aiding and abetting 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 that have considerable relevance with an intention given the nature of an object. In such a case, there is no other method than reasonably determining the link of facts by using an in-depth observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

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 dolusence or predictability (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056 delivered on April 29, 2005, etc.). 2) The defendant is also the same in the court below.