All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (Defendant B) Defendant B is not a partner or a person with no interest in an employee who was engaged in the exchange business of the game of this case according to the direction of unemployment with the benefit determined.

Therefore, even though the defendant's act constitutes a aiding and abetting offender, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the joint principal offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. In order for a joint principal to be established under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the joint principal’s intent as a subjective element. The common principal’s intent is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to allow it without restraint. The common principal’s intent is to shift one’s own intention to practice using another’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004, etc.). Since the functional control by division of occupational roles is based on the functional control by the joint principal’s doctor, it is distinguishable between the two (i) the two (i) the crime is committed in terms of having no control over that act (see Supreme Court Decision 8Do1247, Apr. 11, 1989).