The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

Defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a co-defendant A of the lower court, was only a customer's response as a co-defendant A, and did not receive a daily allowance, but did not recognize the illegality of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the principal’s criminal act with the knowledge that such aiding and abetting and abetting and aiding and abetting the principal’s criminal act during the commission of the crime, as well as aiding and abetting and abetting and aiding and abetting the future act prior to the commencement of the commission.

In addition, the intention of aiding and abetting a principal offender to commit and aiding and abetting a principal offender and the principal offender to commit an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, since such intention is an in-depth fact, if the criminal defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove by means of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the intention given the nature of the object. In this context, there is no other way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

In addition, the intention of the principal offender in the aiding and abetting crime is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to dolusence or prediction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1020 Decided March 11, 2010). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in the instant case.