The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment below, the Defendant did not intend to import the hemp plant extraction amount (one strings, one strings, and two strings) together with the co-defendants A, B, and C in the court below’s order.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (the period of a suspended sentence of two years and six months, etc.) against an unfair defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through the functional control by the intent of joint processing and the intent of the joint principal offender. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the constituent act among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a joint principal offender depending on whether the aforementioned requirements are met.

Meanwhile, in order for a competitor who did not directly participate in an act of organization to be recognized as a joint principal offender for the entire crime, the functional control through essential contribution to the crime ought to be recognized not only as a person who has committed a simple conspiracy, but also as a person who has contributed to the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do235, Apr. 26, 2007; 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010). (b) Examining the lower court’s determination on the portion of the crime of marijuana import and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone offered by the Defendant to import the joint Defendants and marijuana or contributed to this part of the crime.

It is insufficient to recognize it, and otherwise, evidence to recognize it.