We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for one year and ten months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance judgment related to the Defendants A) misunderstanding the legal doctrine (Defendant B) (this part of the allegation is asserted only after the submission period of the written appeal, and therefore, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. However, it can be simply examined.

In light of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the details and degree of the participation of the relevant persons, and the details of distribution of the amount of fraud, etc., Defendant B’s participation in the instant crime should be regarded as an aiding and abetting crime to the extent that it is easy to commit the instant crime, such as impairing the driving for the purpose of committing the crime by accomplices.

B) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2) The punishment against the prosecutor Defendants is too minor.

B. The lower judgment related to the second instance judgment (Defendant B) is too heavy.

2. As to Defendant B’s judgment ex officio, the first and second judgments of the lower court were rendered, each of the Defendant’s appeals was filed, and the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to consolidate these cases for an examination.

However, since each of the above judgment below against Defendant B is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part on Defendant B among the above judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles related to the judgment of the court of first instance is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal No. 1 related to the judgment of the court below on the grounds for appeal

As a joint principal offender is in control of functional acts by a joint doctor, the two are distinguished in that the principal offender has no control over the act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do1247 delivered on April 11, 1989, etc.), and the court below has adopted and investigated lawfully.