1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, in collusion with B and F, did not commit a theft of the instant bus, and merely attempted to conceal and sell the stolen bus with the knowledge that it is a stolen object, and only attempted to buy and sell it to another person.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a co-principal under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine is established by meeting the subjective objective requirements, i.e., a crime conducted through a collaborative process and functional control by such collaborative intent. As such, a person who did not directly share the constituent elements among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether the aforementioned requirements are met. In order to be recognized as a co-principal by a conspiracy who did not directly share the constituent elements and not implement the act as a co-principal, in full view of the position and position of him/her in the entire crime or control or power over the progress of the crime, rather than by his/her mere conspiracy, it should be recognized that a functional control over the crime through an essential contribution to the crime exists (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010; 2013Do658, Aug. 30, 2016).

(1)