A. In the absence of any awareness of the accomplices (W, D, etc.) about the instant crime, the Defendant merely lent the name at the request of W (W, which is a clerical error in W, appears to be a clerical error in W) and received KRW 1,500,000 per month in return, and there was no accomplice’s participation in the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant as a co-principal of the crime of this case with other accomplices, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds that the sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of 1,500,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following: (a) the conspiracy or conspiracy of a co-principal who jointly processes more than two relevant legal principles and commits a crime is not necessarily required to be made directly and explicitly; (b) it may be made objectively and explicitly; (c) however, in any case, a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize it jointly; and (d) if the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the subjective element is to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). Meanwhile, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements of the crime committed through functional control based on the intention of co-processing and the intention of co-processing. Even if some of the conspiracys fail to directly participate in the crime by directly sharing part of the elements of the crime, the entire role, status of the criminal or the process.