The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the defendant misunderstanding that he was involved in the lease contract with the belief that he is a party to the lease contract and was not a party to the contract and did not deceiving the victims, and did not have any intention.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of facts, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the joint principal intention as a subjective element. Here, the joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to allow it without restraint, and it is to transfer one’s own intention to practice using another person’s act as a whole to commit a specific criminal act as a joint principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003, etc.). Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the court below, the conspiracy or conspiracy of a joint principal offender is not necessarily required to be directly and explicitly, and may be done objectively and implicitly, but in any case, there is a combination of intent to jointly realize it through a joint principal offender’s criminal process, and where the defendant denies the criminal intent as a joint principal offender with another person’s criminal intent, such subjective element as an indirect fact or circumstance associated with each other’s health and evidence.

(1) A, while preparing for the opening of a hospital, has been aware of a loan in order to raise an additional fund for the operation of the hospital.