All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal doctrine that the Defendant introduced a job offered by C to F upon contact with C. However, the said job was not known that the Defendant was involved in the Bosing crime, and the Defendant merely received F’s criminal proceeds as a means of repaying the Defendant’s obligation. As such, the Defendant participated in the Bosing crime as a joint principal offender.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) Unlike this, the Defendant is merely an aiding and abetting offender, who is not a principal offender in fraud, but is not a principal offender in fraud. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) that was rendered by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the lower court, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, acknowledged that the Defendant participated in the instant crime in collusion with F, etc. in order

The above argument was rejected.

The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, which is the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint processing. In the event that some of the competitors have not been carried out by directly sharing a part of the constituent requirements.

Even in light of the status and role of a person in a whole crime, or the control or frush power over the progress of a crime, if it is recognized that a person has functional control over a crime through essential contribution to the crime rather than just a person who has conspired, the so-called "joint principal offender" cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime (Supreme Court Decisions 98Do321 Decided May 21, 1998; 2007Do235 Decided April 26, 2007; 2007Do235 Decided April 26, 2007).