Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

A. Although Defendant B (the misunderstanding of legal principle) was merely aiding and abetting Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement, the lower court determined Defendant B as a co-principal of Defendant A and did not reduce the amount as a paper offender under Article 32 of the Criminal Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on facts or co-principal.

B. The Defendants (unfairness) each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of imprisonment, eight months of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act of relevant legal principles, the determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles must be based on the intent and objective requirements of joint processing, which are subjective requirements, and should have been committed through functional control based on the joint will. Here, the intent of joint processing is insufficient to recognize the crime of another person and to allow it without restraint. The purport of joint principal is to shift his/her intent to the execution of his/her own act by using another person’s act as a whole with the intention of joint principal. Meanwhile, the essence of joint principal is a functional control by division of roles. As joint principal is deemed to be a functional control by joint principal offender, and the crime is distinguishable from each other in that there is no functional control by joint principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10373, Oct. 15, 2015).