A. The Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, introduced E and H to D, etc., and did not take part in the crime of theft of oil by installing oil theft facilities, such as connecting oil pressures on oil pipelines, etc.

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

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, which are the implementation of a crime through a functional control based on the intention of co-processing and its co-processing. Even if a person, among co-offenders, does not directly bear part of the constituent requirements, in light of his/her position, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc., and is recognized as having a functional control through essential contribution to the crime, not just a simple conspiracy but also a functional control over the crime through substantial contribution to the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do294, Jun. 23, 2009, etc.). In this case, the conspiracy does not require any legal fixed sentence, but rather requires implied communication between or indirectly with one co-offenders, and the defendant can be lawfully acknowledged by the aforementioned facts and experience rules in light of the aforementioned circumstances, i.e., the lower court’s adoption and control over the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2994, Jun. 23, 2009).