A. The Defendants did not establish and operate a financial investment instruments market without permission in collusion with F, etc., or establish a gambling space for profit.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine is jointly and severally committing a crime. In order to establish a joint principal offender, it is necessary that two or more persons have committed a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective requirement, and the joint principal offender is jointly and severally bound to engage in a specific criminal act, and the joint principal intention is to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act. Such joint principal intention is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and not to restrain it. However, it is sufficient to view in advance that there is a mutual understanding that each of the accomplices is either an element of the principal offender or an act in essence related to the elements of the composition, and that two or more accomplices are jointly and severally engaged in a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). If one or more of the joint principal offenders is jointly and severally engaged in a criminal act, it is not a joint principal offender’s intention, but a joint principal’s intent is not a specific criminal act.