The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts about fraud) fraud, the Defendant did not participate in the claim for expenses for medical care benefits, etc., and did not have any intent to commit fraud, since he did not participate in such claim.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant's crime of fraud. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above facts alleged in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by making a detailed statement on the judgment.

B. We can see the following facts: (a) the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly committing a crime by two or more persons; (b) in order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and objective requirements, as subjective requirements, and the joint principal offender’s intent to commit a crime by means of a functional control based on the joint principal intent, and (c) the joint principal offender’s intent to jointly commit a specific crime by using another person’s act.

In full view of the position, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. of a person who does not directly share and implement part of the act constituting the elements of the conspiracy, if it is acknowledged that a person has functional control over the crime by essential contribution to the crime rather than merely a person who has committed the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). In addition, in relation to co-offenders who jointly process two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal fixed penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons to realize the crime by jointly processing and realize the crime.