The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. The Defendant did not have any intention to commit a fraudulent crime under the laws of Bosing, but did not have any negligence with regard to such fraudulent crime.

It is also difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the lower court which recognized the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting fraud and the crime of aiding and abetting fraud by using computers, etc., erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting

(b) guilty, even

Even if the court below's punishment (one year of suspended sentence in June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, an aided act refers to a direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. Therefore, the so-called aiding 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 composition.

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 having considerable relevance with an intention due to the nature of an object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance with an intention is based on normal empirical rule, and there is no other way to reasonably determine the situation of connection with a fact by using a close observation or analysis force based on the 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 dolusent perception or predictability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005; 2012Do2628, Jun. 28, 2012). The Defendant asserted that the lower court is identical to the assertion of misunderstanding of the above facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court stated in its reasoning.