The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, while recognizing the probability that the Defendant was aware of the crime of Bosing, had a sense of expectation that the Defendant would be able to obtain a loan without any delay, delivered the remitted money under the assumption of the relevance to the crime of Bosing and receiving the transferred money.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the intention of aiding and abetting the defendant.

The facts charged of this case

A. The Defendant is liable to withdraw the amount of damage deposited in the account and deliver it to the cash collection book. The Defendant is a remittance book that collects the amount of damage caused by telephone financial fraud and transfers the amount by the method designated by the total liability according to the direction of a telephone financial fraud assistance officer.

In a place where it is impossible to identify the place, the name-free person takes charge of the crime, such as inducing a large number of unspecified persons in Korea to transfer money to the account of the accused for withdrawal by misrepresenting a financial institution, and inducing them to transfer money from the account holder to the account designated by the total book, etc. The name-free person: (a) conspired to contribute to the transfer of money from the account holder to the account; and (b) the defendant was aware of the crime of the name-free person B and helps him/her commit the crime, such as inducing him/her to commit the crime.

B. On September 23, 2019, Defendant B, and the person who was unaware of the name of the victim C was aware of the fraud in relation to the victim C. The false statement was made to the victim C by misrepresenting the borrower’s staff at a place where the location cannot be known. However, the nameless person was not an employee of the lending company, but did not have the intent or ability to provide the loan. Nevertheless, the nameless person was the victim to have the E bank account (F) in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of repaying the loan of the D bank, and the Defendant was deposited.