A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles, the Defendant is not the joint owner of the G game site, but the Defendant assisted the establishment of the G game site to E upon AD’s request, and did not directly participate in the operation of the G game site, and there is no profit from the operation of the G game site, etc., the judgment of the first instance, which can be punished as aiding and abetting the Defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (10 months of imprisonment) for the sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, based on the determination of the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirement that the crime is committed through a functional control based on the intent to co-processing and the intent to co-processing. A part of the conspiracys did not directly share and implement part of the constituent requirements

Even if it is recognized that the functional control over a crime exists through essential contribution to the crime rather than merely a person who has committed a crime, the so-called "joint principal offender" cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime. Here, the intention of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person's crime and to accept it without restraint, and it should be integrated for the purpose of conducting a specific crime with a common intention, and shall be transferred to the execution of one's own intention by using another's act.

Based on these legal principles, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court, the Defendant goes beyond a simple role as a person to support the crime.