The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that G made a false statement at an investigative agency as the actual owner of business, it is difficult to evaluate that it was difficult or impossible to discover that the Defendant was the actual owner of business due to G’s false statement in light of the fact that the investigative agency was aware that G was the actual owner of business before and after G’s statement, and that G’s statement was not reliable from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of aiding and abetting an offender is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the assertion of the assertion of legal principles is that a criminal suspect investigated by an investigative agency made a false statement as the actual owner of a game room, etc., even though he/she was an employee, not the actual owner of the game room, etc., the criminal defendant also does not constitute a crime of escape in itself. However, if the suspect made a false statement as the actual owner of a game room, he/she should be held responsible for the actual owner's concealment and punishment on his/her behalf (the so-called "the so-called "the so-called head"), and if he/she made a false statement or false statement, it can constitute a crime of escape in light of the legal principle as seen above, such as where the investigation agency's discovery or arrest of the actual owner of the game room, etc. was conducted by being provided with financial benefits, etc. from the actual owner of the business, and it is evaluated that it would be difficult or impossible (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1709, Jan. 28, 2010).