A. The Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in collusion with the above "D", "E", etc. even though the head of the Tong did not recognize that the head of the Tong would be used for the crime of Bosing fraud in order to punish the mental value of the Tong in a situation where it is difficult to mislead the mistake of facts, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unlimited, even if not, and thus, unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a 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 a functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the common intent. Even if some of the competitors have not been carried out by directly sharing part of the elements of a crime, if it is acknowledged that a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime exists, rather than a mere conspiracy, if it is recognized that a functional control exists through the intrinsic contribution to the crime, the crime liability as a co-principal cannot be exempted.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do321 delivered on May 21, 1998, 2002Do995 delivered on June 24, 2004, 2002Do5112 delivered on March 11, 2005, 2006, and 2006Do1623 delivered on December 22, 2006, etc.). In addition, in a co-offender relationship where more than two persons jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal fixed penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Thus, even if there was no mother process of the whole, if there was no mother process, the conspiracy is made either in order or implicitly through several persons.