A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

but for three years from the date this judgment becomes final.

A. Since the defendant was involved in the crime of this case after receiving occupational instructions from E in accordance with the employment relationship, it cannot be viewed that he is liable for a co-principal even if he is punished as an aiding and abetting crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the first instance court on the accused (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and fine of one hundred and sixty million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more accomplices. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, the joint principal offender is required to have committed a crime through a functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with another person’s intent, and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act. Such joint processing intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and not to restrain it. However, there is a lack of prior solicitation of the crime plan, and there is a trade among the accomplices that each of the accomplices constitutes an element of a crime or share of an act in essence related to the elements of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do6103, Jan. 24, 2003; 2007Do6716, Sept. 11, 2008).