A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not operate the PC jointly with E, but only received benefits and provided the PC subordinate thereto, and thus, it is merely a aiding and abetting criminal, not a joint principal offender. 2) The PC provided the PC at the PC, and there was no alteration of the PC game machine in the ice format, and there was no fact that the game product

3) Since only the PC bank usage fee was received and the game itself was provided free of charge, it cannot be deemed that the change was made to a paid game. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to the assertion that a joint principal offender is merely an assistant offender, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly and severally committing a crime. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, it is necessary to commit a crime through functional control based on the joint principal’s intent and objective requirements as subjective elements. Here, the intention of joint principal processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and not to restrain it, and it should be one of the joint principal offenders with intent to commit a specific crime, and it should be intended to move one’s own intent to commit a specific crime by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003). Meanwhile, since the essence of the joint principal offender is a functional control by division of roles, the joint principal offender is in violation of the functional control by the joint principal’s intent, and thus, the criminal principal is distinguishable from the Defendant, as seen earlier, inasmuch as he did not control the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do127128.