A. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) or misunderstanding of the legal principles (including the part not guilty (including the part not guilty of the reasoning)), the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, although the Defendant conspired with the employees of the phishing, in sequential order, with the victims of the 75 million won from the victims.

(2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (1) of the Criminal Act as to the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is a crime jointly committed by two or more persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control over a functional act based on a joint doctor as a subjective element. The intention of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to deny it without restraint. It is insufficient to say that the joint principal offender’s intent is integrated to commit a specific criminal act with another person’s intention and to shift to one’s execution by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200). Furthermore, the essence of the joint principal offender is functional control by division of occupational roles.

As a joint principal offender is in a functional control by a joint doctor, it is distinguished between the two parties in that there is no control over the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013, etc.). (2) The lower court did not derive a specific result of the investigation into the accomplice in order to determine whether the Defendant received any instruction from anyone and received any instructions from him/her, and the Defendant delivered the victim’s money with his/her mother, under the aforementioned legal doctrine. (2)