The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had an intentional intent to assist in the crime of fraud by withdrawing the amount of damage caused by telephone financial fraud and by conveying it to the assistance staff.

2. On October 27, 2016, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that “the Defendant would make use of the Defendant’s account in order to deal with illegal money, such as a telephone financing fraud, by withdrawing the money deposited by the customer to reduce taxable transactions, and deliver it to our employees, 5% of the withdrawal amount,” the Defendant provided the Defendant’s name-based strawed account to the Nonindicted Party, despite having known that “The Defendant would pay 5% of the withdrawal amount to our employees as commission.”

On October 31, 2016, an employee in charge of the crime of false telephone financing fraud, saying, “In the event of the transfer of money to repay the existing loan, the existing loan will be repaid and the loan amount will be increased at a low interest rate, and then a new loan will be made at a low interest rate” was remitted to the victim D by call at a place where no location is known, and then, at the same time, the victim was transferred KRW 1,740,00 to the Korean Sslick account in the name of the defendant on the same day.

In order to assist Defendant 1 to commit the above fraud, Defendant 1 withdrawn KRW 11 million out of the money remitted by the damaged party at the location of the Gun-based branch in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 31, 2017, at around 14:37, 2017, Defendant 1 sent to Defendant 1,100,000 won in cash to Defendant 2.

Accordingly, the defendant, by facilitating the fraud of a person without a name, has prevented it.

3. The lower court’s judgment is solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor that “the intent of aiding and abetting the principal offender to practice” and “the principal offender’s act constitutes fraud.”