The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the lower judgment’s aiding and abetting fraud, the Defendant did not know at all that he did not have been aware of, or could not have foreseen, the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of aiding and abetting fraud, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, an act of assistance refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime, and the crime of assistance must be committed with the intention of the so-called aiding and abetting the principal offender to commit a crime and the intention of the principal offender to the fact that the act of aiding and abetting the principal offender

However, in the case of aiding and abetting, the principal offender’s intent does not need to be aware of the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, and it is sufficient to dolusent perception or predictability (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005, etc.). The Defendant asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. However, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined under the title “Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” as to the above assertion by the Defendant, the lower court acknowledged the circumstances: (b) the Defendant did not know of the specific contents and methods with respect to the singing fraud committed by the Defendant’s name in a systematic manner.

Even if so, it seems that it would have been aware of or could have been influence, and the defendant's person.