The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On March 1, 2017, the Defendant: (a) left the Republic of Korea as the Philippines; and (b) left the Republic of Korea for the same year.

3.6. From March 1, 2017, since it returned to Korea.

3. Until June 3, it is evident that the defendant was not involved in the crime.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part of the charges No. 1 of the instant facts charged during the period of departure [the crimes (1) No. 187 through No. 204 per annum].

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, 1) When one of the applicants among the joint principals of the public offering leaves the public offering relationship before the other applicants reach the implementation thereof, he shall not be held liable as a joint principal offender with respect to the subsequent acts of the other solicitors.

However, it is necessary to eliminate the functional control over the behavior performed by the contester by the contest. Therefore, when the contester participated in the contest and has an effect on the execution of another contest, the contest has left the contest relationship unless it removes the influence on the execution, such as actively endeavoring to stop the crime, etc.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant left the Republic of Korea on March 1, 2017 and left the Republic of Korea for the Republic of Korea for the Republic of Korea on April 10, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008; 2010Do6924, Sept. 9, 2010)

3.6. The fact that he has returned home shall be recognized; and

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by the above evidence, Defendant 1 left the public contest relationship with D during the above departure period.

As can not be seen, it is reasonable to view that all of the facts charged No. 1 of the instant case is charged as a joint principal offender.

In other words, ..