A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendants) ① the Defendant searched a part-time-related writing on the Internet, and contacted with the job offer advertisement “I”, “T” from the person “T” to exchange virtual currency and received a guide from the person “T” to receive fees. ② The Defendant asked to confirm the fact that T’s instructions are similar to the singishing crime, and sought confirmation by transmitting a photograph of the singishing outline to T on the Internet. However, the Defendant sent the answer that the business was unrelated to the singishing. ③ The Defendant merely carried out the writing on a mechanical basis under the direction to deposit without a passbook designated account after moving cash to another place; ③ The Defendant did not receive information on the singishing crime, such as the size of the crime, the person participating in the crime, plan, etc., even if the Defendant assisted the singishing crime, it cannot be deemed a joint principal offender.

Do. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of fraud. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. (1) The sentence imposed by the Defendant by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (i) The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act committed a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute a co-principal, the crime is committed through functional control by the intention of co-processing, which is a subjective element, and the objective requirement, by the co-principal.