A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) Defendant 1 made C use of the account established by the Defendant, as necessary for money exchange projects, by having C use the account; (b) Defendant delivered to G and H as well as pursuant to C’s request. As such, Defendant did not have conspired with C in relation to the operation of an illegal gambling site; (c) Defendant did not have conspired with C in relation to the operation of the illegal gambling site. (d) Defendant’s imprisonment with labor (one year and four months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of joint principal offenders who jointly process and commit a crime by two or more judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy or conspiracy is not necessarily required to be made directly, explicitly, but may be made objectively and implicitly, but in any case, there is a combination of intent to jointly process and realize it. In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective element should be proven by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts which are relevant to the criminal intent by nature of the object.

On the other hand, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even if part of the competitors have not been carried out by directly sharing part of the constituent acts, if it is acknowledged that a functional control through an essential contribution to a crime exists rather than merely a mere conspiracy, but rather a functional control through an essential contribution to a crime, it may escape from the criminal liability as so-called co-principal.