The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal principles are merely aware of the fact that the instant crime was committed on the part of the Defendant, and specifically, the principal child or his accomplice did not know of the commission of each of the instant crimes by way of any criminal act. As such, recognizing the Defendant as a principal offender for each of the instant crimes is unreasonable, but it should be recognized that the crime of aiding and abetting was committed.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint processing.

The so-called crime liability as a joint principal offender may be imposed even when a person who has not directly shared and implemented part of the constituent requirements among the conspiracys. However, in order to prevent such crime, considering the status, role, control of the progress of the crime, etc. in the entire crime, it should be recognized that there exists a functional control through the essential contribution to the crime rather than just the person who has committed the crime.

In addition, in light of all the circumstances, such as the means and patterns of crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and characteristics of the place of crime, the possibility of contact with others during the course of crime, and anticipated reaction, etc., the conspiracys could have anticipated or sufficiently anticipated that incidental crimes will be derived during the commission of the crime or to achieve the purpose, but they did not take reasonable measures to prevent such occurrence.