A. In relation to the money listed in paragraphs 4 and 9 of the crime inundation list (1) and paragraph 4 of the crime inundation list (2) of this Article, since the defendant was divided into A, R, S, and D, each of the above money that the defendant received or obtained by the defendant, he shall be limited to KRW 700,000,000,000,000, and KRW 500,000,000,000 at the above A's request with regard to the money listed in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the crime inundation list (1) of this Article, he only exchanged the 50,000,000 won and KRW 2,000,000,000,0000 in cash, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of two years, the suspension of the execution of the imprisonment of three years, the fine of 15 million won, the community service order of 160 hours, the additional collection of 8.7 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the assertion of mistake of facts, and the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, which are the execution of a crime through the functional control based on the intention of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even though a person who did not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime among the competitors, if it is acknowledged that there is a functional control through the intrinsic contribution to the crime, not just the conspiracy but also the functional control through the substantial contribution to the crime, in view of the status, role, control or power over the progress of the crime, etc. in whole, if it is acknowledged that there is a functional control over the crime through the substantial contribution to the crime, the co-principal is liable for the crime committed by another conspiracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11030, Jan. 27, 2011). In the event that several persons jointly commit the crime of acceptance of bribe, the accomplice cannot be exempt not only from his amount of his/her accepted but also from the amount of

Supreme Court Decision 99Do1557 delivered on August 20, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do987 delivered on May 12, 2006.