A. Since there was no fact that Defendant A instructed or involved in illegal exchange in “F” located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant game site”), Defendant A cannot be recognized as a public contest relationship with Defendant D, etc. with regard to the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, on a different premise, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and confiscation; imprisonment for six months and suspension of execution for Defendant C; imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment with prison labor for a community service order 120 hours; Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months; confiscation and collection) against the Defendants are too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. 1) In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the relevant legal doctrine and objective requirements are the intent of joint processing, which is subjective requirements, and the criminal act is necessary to have been committed through functional control based on such joint doctor. Here, the intent of joint processing is not sufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but to accept it without restraint, and it should be one of the joint intent to commit a specific criminal act with another’s criminal intent and to shift one’s own intent to practice by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003). Meanwhile, the essence of joint principal offender is a functional control by division of roles. As joint principal offender is deemed to have a functional control by joint principal offender, it is distinguishable between the two parties in that it has no control over such act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Do12477, Apr. 11, 1989; 200Du2727, etc.).