A. As to the facts constituting a crime in the 2015 Highest 2839 case, the Defendant: (a) merely transferred to P the 1st floor online game room of Daejeon P, which was under the control of the Defendant; (b) was not operated by P from July 18, 2012 to July 19, 2012 in collusion with P; and (c) even if it may be likely that this constitutes aiding and abetting the operation of P, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine of the common principal offender, thereby convicting him/her of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is not required under the law in relation to accomplices who are jointly processed by two or more persons in a crime, but is a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, even if the whole mother does not have the process of the crime, there is a conspiracy of conspiracy between two or more persons in a successive or secret manner.

Such intent of co-processing is not necessarily necessary to offer a prior criminal planning, and there is sufficient mutual understanding that each co-offenders are able to achieve the composition requirement or share the actions in essence related to the composition requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011; 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). In addition, in order to recognize such a conspiracy, strict proof is not required, but if the Defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is proven by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that are relevant in light of the nature of the object.