The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On August 16, 2018, the facts charged No. B, around 14:15, stating that a new bank under the name of the F, which was stolen by B, will purchase one gold paper from the bank of “E” operated by the victim D (n, 50 years of age) of Heung-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, and on the same day, paid 6.70,000 won by presenting the credit card in the name of F, which was stolen by B, as if it was owned by B’s wife, but upon suspicion of the above victim, the said settlement was completely revoked until the identification card.

As a result, B attempted to receive property by deceiving the victim, and used stolen credit cards.

In committing such crimes as above, the Defendant: (a) moved to the above B and the gold bank; and (b) waited as if he was the above card titleholder (B); and (c) aided and abetted B to commit such crimes as fraud and Specialized Credit Financial Business Act by facilitating the above-mentioned crimes.

2. Determination

A. Since aiding and abetting is an act of a accessories that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime, the principal offender must have the intention to aid and abetting the principal offender’s commission and that the principal offender’s act constitutes the elements of a crime.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do4031, Jan. 29, 1999). B.

According to the images of the “CCTV White Past Co., Ltd.” submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant saw the “E” in front of the date and time indicated in the facts charged, and then can confirm the appearance (round 45 seconds of the above image) that the Defendant hedging with B before the said gold bank and thrown away to another place of the mixed person (round 45 seconds of the above image). After that, B entered the said gold bank, the Defendant shot around the said gold bank (round 12 minutes and 30 seconds of the above image) did not appear as the Defendant shot around the said gold bank (round 12 minutes of the above image).

Ultimately, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was waiting prior to the above gold prior to the time stated in the facts charged, and the said “CCTV image white CD” alone is written in the facts charged against the Defendant.