The judgment below

Among them, the part of confiscation against Defendant A shall be reversed.

The images stored in the seized tamper, and ..

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant A (unfair sentencing) imposed on Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not agree with Defendant A to commit the instant crime, and was merely an aiding and abetting the said crime, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby determined Defendant B as a joint principal offender for the crime of violating the Military Secrets Protection Act.

(c)

(1) The evidence Nos. 1 and 4, which was confiscated by Defendant A by misunderstanding the legal principles, constitutes “goods produced or acquired by committing a criminal act,” and thus should be confiscated, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby omitting the confiscation.

(2) Improper sentencing of the lower court’s sentence against Defendant A is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which is determined as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, is jointly and severally committed by two or more persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to engage in a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and functional control as an objective element. A joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and not to restrain it, and it is not sufficient to accept it without any restriction, and it should be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with another person’s intention and to shift his/her intention to practice by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200). Furthermore, the essence of a joint principal offender is functional control by division of occupational roles.

As a joint principal offender is a functional control by a joint doctor, it is distinguished between the two in that the principal offender has no control over the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013, etc.).