A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not take part in the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and despite the fact that the above crime was committed differently, there is an error of mistake of facts in the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The punishment (one year and four months of imprisonment, and confiscation) sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine is jointly and severally committed by two or more persons. In order to constitute joint principal offenders, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly and severally formed to commit a specific criminal act with another person’s intent, and to transfer his/her own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 201). Such joint processing intent is insufficient solely with the recognition of another person’s criminal act without restraint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200), and there is no need to establish a prior joint principal offender’s crime plan, and there is sufficient evidence that each of the accomplices was jointly and severally related to the constituent elements of the crime between the Defendant and the lower court.