The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court determined that the Defendant was an aiding and abetting person, not a joint principal offender, on the ground that it could be acknowledged that the Defendant had an intent to jointly process the crime of Bosing fraud.

2. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly and severally committing a crime. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to commit a crime through functional control based on the intention and objective requirements of joint processing as a subjective requirement.

Joint processing intention is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without preventing it, and it should be one of the joint intent to conduct a specific criminal act, and it should be to shift one's own intention to implement another's act by using another person's act.

Therefore, in order to determine whether a joint principal offender is established, the following must be proven to the extent that the relationship between the status and role of the actors through the entire process of realizing the crime, the details of solicitation for other actors, etc., is beyond reasonable doubt (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015, etc.). Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, in collusion with the general responsibility for the Defendant’s name and thereby, led to the Defendant to exercise functional control over the criminal act based on the joint doctor’s intention in relation to the criminal act of licensing.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

① In addition to the simple information to receive money, such as a person who will deliver money to the Defendant, and a time and place for delivery, the entire plan or specific method of committing the phishing fraud, and the Defendant’s act of taking charge of the phishing fraud, shall be under the entire plan.