A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the point of fraud) were employed by the Defendant through a general recruitment procedure, and only did it do not have any negligence as to the fact that the Defendant acquired money by deceiving the victims and deceiving the victims. Since the Defendant did not take charge of direct deception, such as misrepresenting the victims, the Defendant is merely an aiding and abetting the instant fraud. Nevertheless, the lower court, which recognized the Defendant as a joint principal offender, erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the intent of joint processing. As such, where some of the competitors did not directly share and implement part of the constituent requirements.

Even in cases where it is recognized that functional control over a crime exists through essential contribution to the crime rather than merely a person who has conspired, the so-called crime liability cannot be exempted (see Supreme Court Decisions 98Do321 delivered on May 21, 1998; 2007Do235 delivered on April 26, 2007; 2007Do428 delivered on April 26, 2007, etc.). In addition, in the case of one publicly recruited principal offender, the public invitation does not require any legal fixed penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process the crime.