A. Since the Defendant received benefits from mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is merely an employee who is in cruel mind, it should be assessed as an aiding and abetting offender in light of the degree of his participation, and it is unreasonable to punish him as a co-principal.

B. Even if the defendant's joint principal offender is unreasonable, it constitutes joint principal offender.

Even if the defendant's position, role, and amount of proceeds, etc., the court below's punishment (10 months of imprisonment, 10 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion that a co-principal is merely an aiding and abetting criminal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control based on the co-principal’s intent as a subjective element and objective requirement. Here, the intent of co-processing is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime but to accept it without restraint, and it should be the same as a whole to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and to shift one’s own intent to practice by using another person’s act.

Meanwhile, the essence of the co-principal is deemed to be functional control by division of roles. As such, the co-principal’s functional control by co-principal is contrary to the fact that the co-principal has a functional control by the co-principal, and the two are distinguished in that the perpetrator has no control over the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do10373, Oct. 15, 2015). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant (i) from March 28, 2016 to the evidence duly

4. The facts constituting the act of arranging sexual traffic until September 30, 2016, which were sentenced to a suspended sentence on September 30, 2016. ② Co-defendant A also has a record of being sentenced to a fine on July 14, 2016 due to the facts constituting the act of arranging sexual traffic between February 22, 2016 and March 25, 2016; ③ the Defendant and A had been aware of it prior to that time; and the Defendant, upon request by A, was subject to a suspended sentence on July 2, 2017.