A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were not recruited by telephone financial fraud assistance staff and each of the instant fraud crimes, and there was no intent to defraud the Defendant. Nevertheless, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding the Defendant guilty of all the instant facts charged. 2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendant’s assertion of the facts. Inasmuch as a co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through a functional control based on the intent to co-processing and the intent to jointly commit the crime, it cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as a co-principal if it is recognized that there exists a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime in full when comprehensively taking into account his/her position, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. in the whole crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do8600, Oct. 26, 2017). Further, the conspiracy in which two or more persons jointly process the crime does not require any legal fixed sentence, but only if two or more persons jointly commit the intent to realize the crime through the joint processing of the crime, such combination is established, and if such combination is carried out by a conspiracy with the intention of two or more persons, it cannot be said that the two or more of the conspiracy was committed.