A. Although there is a fact that the Defendant participated in the instant crime in accordance with D’s instructions, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the fraud of the victim E, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the fraud of the victim E, it did not recognize the remainder of KRW 184,828,194 out of the total amount of damage, and there is no fact that the remainder of the amount of the damage was conspired with the remainder of the assistance staff. 2) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges as to the fraud of the victim E, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the co-principal.

B. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Code is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, which are the execution of a crime through the functional control by the intention of co-processing and the functional control by the co-principal. As such, a person who did not directly share the elements of a crime among the competitors may be held liable as a co-principal depending on whether the above requirements are met.

In order to be recognized as a co-principal by a conspiracy who did not directly share and implement the constituent act, the functional control through essential contribution to the crime should be recognized not only as a mere conspiracy but also as a functional control.

In the case of co-principals, the conspiracys recruited in light of various circumstances, such as the means and form of crime, the number of participants and their tendency, the time and characteristics of crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of crime, anticipated reaction, etc.