A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) The Defendant merely developed the so-called G system, which is a virtual currency trading system, and sold it to the Exchange; (b) did not fully participate in the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act and the crime of fraud entered in the facts charged by using the virtual currency traded in the said Exchange; and (c) contrary to this, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant case by recognizing the Defendant’s conspiracy relationship by confused with “G” and “H” or “AS”, which is a means of payment, which is a virtual currency trading system,

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, namely, the execution of a crime through functional control by the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. As such, a person who directly shared the elements of a crime among the competitors and did not implement it may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether the above requirements are met.

In order to be recognized as a co-principal by a conspiracy who did not directly share and implement the constituent act, the functional control through essential contribution to the crime should be recognized not only as a mere conspiracy but also as a functional control.

In the case of co-principals, in light of various circumstances, such as the means and form of crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and characteristics of the crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of the crime, anticipated reaction with others, etc., other crimes incidental to the criminal conduct or attempt to achieve the purpose.