A. The Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the Co., Ltd., Ltd., operating the Defendant (hereinafter “E”) are separate corporations, and the Defendant did not participate in the E’s operation or solicitation of investment funds.

Since the Defendant conspiredd with, or did not participate in, the instant fraud crime, the Defendant does not constitute a co-principal.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established by meeting the subjective objective requirements of crime implementation through a joint processing intent and functional control by the joint doctor. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a joint principal offender depending on whether the above requirements are met. However, in order for a person who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime to be recognized as a joint principal offender by taking into account the status that he/she accounts for in the entire crime and the control and power over the progress of the crime, etc., in order to be recognized as a joint principal offender by sharing the elements of a crime, he/she should be recognized as having a functional control over the crime through an essential contribution to the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010).