A. The fact that the Defendant, along with A, etc., prepared a printed article that has reached the office of the planning and finance division audit officer.

However, sending it to the planning and finance division is a mixed person under a separate judgment, and the defendant was unaware of it at the time.

Therefore, even though the Defendant did not take part in the crime committed on August 4, 2016 by A, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding that the lower court recognized the Defendant’s joint principal offender’s liability for the crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged with this part of the charges by its evidence, and found the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Defendant, A, and C (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) following consultation with the Defendant’s telephone or telephone call from June 2016 to the Defendant’s statement, etc. as stated in its reasoning, which were revealed in the following circumstances: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2720, Jul. 31, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 24201, Sep. 19, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20654, Feb. 16, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20655, Feb. 16, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20650, Feb. 16, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20650, Feb. 16, 2016>