The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is experienced prior to the Defendant’s loan, and thus, it appears that the Defendant could have sufficiently known that illegal elements were involved in the loan process of this case. Thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

2. The lower court, based on its detailed reasoning, determined that the Defendant could not recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent of aiding and abetting fraud on the ground that: (a) the Defendant only withdrawn and delivered money from the account opened in the name of the Defendant according to the instructions given by a name-free winner that the Defendant should create a transaction performance in order to obtain a loan; and (b) the Defendant did not recognize that the Defendant’s act was easy to commit

The court below acknowledged the following facts based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant's telephone conversation details and the Kakao Stockholm message contents, found the fact that the non-name-based person deceptions the defendant by borrowing the loan, ② the defendant raised questions in the course of cash withdrawal, and ② the non-name-based person's letter of payment is heavier than the defendant's letter of payment guarantee.

I cannot say that they can be reported as a gold source, "a summary that may not be reported as a gold source," and "a light that can not be reported as a short-term sign."

“A bank,” and “the customer protection vehicle,” are fluored at the customer protection vehicle.

Sending Kakao Stockholm messages, including “,” etc.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the defendant had been deceiving and learned the defendant, and the fact that the defendant had no record of investigation or punishment for the same crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant withdrawn and delivered cash under the awareness that "the defendant was able to facilitate the commission of the phishing fraud" beyond being given a loan by law.

The lower court’s conclusion is justifiable.