The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (A) requires the intention of the so-called aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. The Defendant was aware of the fact that E and F committed an unlawful act using a cell phone provided by the Defendant, but at least E and F did not know that they committed a telephone financing fraud, and thus, the crime of aiding and abetting fraud is not established.

(B) The mobile phone supplied by the Defendant to E/F is not 7,000 cost.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., e., e., t

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. (1) Regarding the argument that the crime of aiding and abetting a mistake of facts is not established under the Criminal Act, the aiding and abetting act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime, and the aiding and abetting act is established not only in the process of the principal offender’s commission, but also in the case of aiding and abetting and abetting the commission of a future act prior to the commencement of the commission. Although the so-called aiding and abetting the principal offender’s commission and the principal offender’s act constitute an act that constitutes a constituent element, the principal offender must have the intention to commit the so-called aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender and the fact that the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element, such intentional act is an internal fact, and therefore, if the defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance to the principal offender’s intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance in this case,