A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

2. We examine ex officio the interference with the exercise of rights among the facts charged in the instant case before determining the reasons for ex officio appeal.

Article 30 of the Criminal Code provides that two or more principals jointly commit a crime. In order to establish a joint principal offender, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the intention and objective requirements of the joint principal offender as a subjective requirement.

Joint processing intention is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without preventing it, and it should be one of the joint intent to conduct a specific criminal act, and it should be to shift one's own intention to implement another's act by using another person's act.

Therefore, in order to determine whether a joint principal offender is established, it is necessary to examine the status and role of the actors through the entire process of realizing the crime, the details of solicitation for other actors, etc., and comprehensively examine them, and establish the relationship of mutual use based on the joint processing’s intent to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5355, Oct. 29, 2015). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was merely able to receive KRW 100,00 as a fee upon request by her driving without knowing the fact that he/she intends to drive a car offered as security, and the Defendant was to receive KRW 10,000,00 as a fee and tried to go into Gwangju. After that, the Defendant arrived at Gwangju and came to know of the above purpose, and even after that, he/she returned to Gwangju City to drive a car subject to the crime, but thereafter, did not participate in the transport of the car.