A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the legal principles is not a joint principal offender, but a aiding and abetting offender, since the Defendant merely supervised the withdrawal or delivery of money without recognizing the specific details of each of the instant frauds. (2) The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (in October, 2 years of suspension of execution, 120 hours of probation, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine, the Defendant was unaware of the specific deception of each of the instant fraud crimes, even if so,

However, it is reasonable to view that the pertinent amount constitutes a joint principal offender, inasmuch as it has contributed to the commission of each of the instant frauds by sharing the role of monitoring the realization or delivery of the pertinent amount by collusion with D, E, etc., in order or implicitly, while recognizing the fact that it was illegally acquired.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① In the case of organized fraud crimes like the instant case, the role is closely connected by the following: (a) the overall responsibility for overall criminal acts; (b) the incentive for inducing the victims; (c) the incentive for inducing the victims; (d) the withdrawal of the cash remitted from the victims; (e) the delivery of the cash cash cash to the total book; and (e) the surveillance measures for monitoring the withdrawal and delivery books; and (e) any of these roles cannot be expected to result in the success of the entire criminal acts unless it is performed properly; and (e) the participating parties, depending on their respective roles, contribute to the entire criminal acts.

may be seen.

② D is responsible for overall control over each of the instant fraud crimes, and E is decided by the lower court.