A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not specifically encourage other accomplices to commit the instant fraud, and there was no knowledge about whether other accomplices committed the instant fraud, and whether the remitted money was acquired by the Defendant through the fraud.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although there is no evidence that the defendant's act satisfies the subjective and objective requirements such as the execution of a crime through the control of functional acts by the intention of joint processing as to the crime of fraud in this case and by the joint intent. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles of joint principal

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) As the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more persons, it is necessary to have committed a crime through the control of functional acts by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, in order for the joint principal offender to be established. The joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with a common intent, and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act. Such joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but not to restrain it. However, there is a mutual understanding that each co-offender is not necessarily required to commit a prior criminal act, and that each co-offender is in essence a constituent element or an act related to the constituent element.