The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the law, the Defendant believed the horses of the Defendant that there is no problem with the law, and entered the FF stock company on behalf of the Defendant, and only engaged in the preparation and receipt of insurance documents, and there is no direct insurance or there is no allowance from D, a multi-level company.

Therefore, there was no intention to participate in the instant crime by C at the time, and there was no intention to commit the instant crime in collusion with C.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and thereby convicted all of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine commits a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, a subjective element is required for the commission of a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is an objective element, and a joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act, and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001). Such a joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient only to recognize another person’s crime but not to restrain it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200), and it is sufficient for the lower court to have determined that each accomplice did not have to have any requisite prior to committing a crime, and that each of the accomplices has any specific act related to the elements of a crime, such as the formation of a joint principal offender.