All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Defendant C did not fully participate in the instant crime.

Even if Defendant C took part in the instant crime, there is a liability for the crime committed by Defendant C.

However, the judgment of the court below which recognized Defendant C as a principal offender for the crime of attempted fraud of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the facts, Defendant D did not have conspired to commit the instant crime, and it was merely an intentional aiding and abetting the instant crime. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant D as a joint principal offender for the instant attempted crime was erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Defendant C and D’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a subjective element, and it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the common intent. Here, the common intent of co-processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to allow it without restraint, and it should be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with another person’s intention, and it should be transferred to one’s execution by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004). Since the essence of the common principal offender is a functional control by division of work roles, the common principal offender has a functional control by the common doctor, and therefore, the common principal offender has control over such act.