2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the instant facts charged in the judgment of the lower court are as follows: “The Defendant, in collusion with the Defendant’s wife D, did not file a lodging report with the competent authorities, and did so with the competent authorities, and operated accommodation business by receiving accommodation charges from May 31, 2016 to June 6, 2016 against foreign tourists, who promised to use the lodging site via accommodation-sharing site F (hereinafter “officetel of this case”).

“.....”

The lower court, on this basis, knew that the Defendant and D’s statement, the Defendant committed a specific act by sharing the role of lodging in D’s failure to file a report, or that the instant officetel 1301 was registered with F, a lodging sharing site.

Comprehensively taking account of the absence of objective evidence, D’s non-reported accommodation business, and the Defendant, who reported the marriage with D, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant officetel 1301, is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s public invitation.

The decision was determined.

B. 1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly and severally committing a crime. For the establishment of a joint principal offender, it is necessary to commit a crime through a functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective requirement, by the intention of joint processing and objective requirements.

Here, the intention of co-processing is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without preventing it, and it is not sufficient that the intention of co-processing will be integrated to conduct a specific criminal act with a common intention, and it is to shift its own will to the execution by using another person's act.