All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Although Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a aiding and abetting offense committed by C, the lower court’s finding the Defendant as a principal offender is erroneous or misunderstanding the legal doctrine as to the aiding and abetting offense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment (a year and six months of imprisonment, a fine of KRW 6.5 billion) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s improper sentencing: the lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. 1) In order for a joint principal offender to be established under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control based on the common intent, which is a subjective requirement. Here, the intention of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to accept it without restraint, and it should be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with another person’s intention and to shift one’s own intention to practice by using another person’s act.

On the other hand, the essence of joint principals is in functional control by division of occupational roles.

As a joint principal offender is in a functional control by a joint doctor, the two parties are distinguished in that there is no control over the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013, etc.). 2) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant stated in detail the police that the defendant has established D, which is a material company in the instant case, with C, with the police, the background leading up to the establishment of D, D’s profit structure, and fees that the defendant would receive from C (after that, the defendant partly reversed this part of the statement by the prosecution, but the defendant could easily dismiss the credibility of the above police’s statement in light of the fact that the defendant voluntarily made the above statement and the existence of the statement.