The remainder, excluding a compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. In 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant B.

A. Defendant B (1) Defendant B) Defendant B’s H Dong (hereinafter “H Dong”) of G Building I located in Mapo-si, Mapo-si.

(1) The G Building O-Dong (hereinafter referred to as the “O-Dong”) in P and H, collectively referred to as the “instant housing”

Defendant A’s transfer and lease agreement (referred to as “instant co-principal act” hereinafter collectively referred to as 14 / 17 / 14 / 17 / 2 / 8 / 10 / 10 / 10 /

(2) The sentence of the lower court (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, community service order, and 2 years of imprisonment) against Defendant A and Defendant B was too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment as to Defendant B

A. A. A joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine commits a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to establish a joint principal offender, a subjective requirement is the intent and objective requirement for joint processing, and requires the fact of performance of a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor. A joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime while he/she does not restrain it, and to accept it without restraint, with the intention to commit a specific criminal act as a joint principal, and to shift his/her intent by using another person’s act to the execution of his/her own intent.

The establishment of a co-principal shall be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the relation of mutual use of the same name through the whole process of realizing the crime, and the status and role of each person, the solicitation of accomplices, etc. shall be comprehensively examined, and the relation of mutual use should be proved to the extent that there is no such proof.

Even if there is no choice but to be judged by the defendant's interest.

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21033 Decided May 11, 2018). B.

The lower court’s judgment: (a) Defendant B.