The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

21,865,490 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not a use of terrorist funds, such as purchase of murders, but a religious fund is provided to the Muslim in need of assistance, such as the father or satisf, caused by a war.

Therefore, the defendant did not know that the money was used for the terrorist fund, and did not have the purpose of benefiting terrorist organizations, and did not have the intention of pretending to provide funds to the terrorist organizations or the acquisition and disposal of criminal proceeds.

If the term “U” set the use of terrorist funds (such as Laos, automatic carbon guns, bombs, armed shots, etc.) as the attached table of crimes (1) Nos. 12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 of the attached table of crimes (1) in the holding of the court below, “N” purchased goods.

The Defendant, without knowledge of the designation of “U” for any purpose, merely delivered money that the “U” sent to the account to the “N” through a person returning the money to the account. As such, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the charge against this part.

B. As to the decision of the court below on the unreasonable sentencing (two-year imprisonment, etc.), the defendant asserts that the punishment is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the punishment is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that: (a) the Defendant provided, recruited, transported, and stored funds for the purpose of supporting at least the Defendant’s “B” while knowing the fact that the Defendant was a terrorist organization, and (b) the Defendant sufficiently recognized that there was a co-principal relationship with the “U”, “N”, and “N” in relation to the pertinent crime.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

This part of the defendant's argument is reasonable.