The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (inception of a criminal defendant) only stated that B himself had operated the instant business in the investigative agency, and there was no fact that the defendant instigated B to avoid committing a crime.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of additional collection, since there is no profit actually earned by the defendant due to the operation of the business of this case.

C. The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified since the defendant committed the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal as stated in the judgment below is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

⒧ 피고인은 검찰에서 “B과 처음 만났을 때 업소의 명의를 등록하고 월급을 주는 대신에 경찰에 단속이 되면 B이 실업주라고 진술을 하기로 약속을 했다.”, “B에게 조사를 잘 받고 와라고 말을 한 적은 있지만 특별하게 다른 말을 하지는 않았다. 왜냐하면 경찰에 단속이 되면 본인이 실업주라고 하기로 되어 있는데 굳이 다른 말을 할 필요가 없었다.”는 취지로 진술하였고, 원심 법정에서도 일관되게 범행을 자백하여 그 진술의 신빙성이 있는 반면, 당심에서 한 진술은 그 번복 경위를 납득하기 어려워 신빙성이 낮다.

She also stated in the prosecution that "I would like to receive 2.5 million won per month from the defendant, and I would like to undergo an investigation when I would establish and crack down a massage place in the name of the defendant," and the court below also led the defendant to confession the criminal facts of the criminal suspect.