All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were detained on September 20, 2014 and released on October 24, 2014. Since the Defendant was detained, the Defendant did not participate in the operation of the “J” website after being detained, there was no responsibility for the subsequent crimes.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts constituting the crime after September 20, 2014, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the co-principal, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and fine of two thousand won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E’s punishment (fine 4,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where Defendant A’s judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles committed a part of the crime which is a single comprehensive crime, and left from the co-offender relationship, but the remaining crime was committed by another co-offender, the Defendant is liable for the charge even for the part in which

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9927, Jan. 13, 2011). In addition, in a case of a co-principal, if one of the co-principals withdraws from his/her competitive relationship before the others reach the commission of the act, he/she is not liable as a co-principal with respect to the subsequent act of the other co-principals. However, the renunciation in the competitive relationship is necessary to resolve the functional control of the person who is in charge of the contest by the contest. As such, when the contest participated in the leading process of the contest and has an impact on the execution of the other competitors, it cannot be said that he/she escaped from the competitive relationship solely on the grounds that the contest was detained unless he/she actively made an effort to restrain the crime, etc.,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6924, Sept. 9, 2010). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was on September 9, 2014.