The guilty part of the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant shall be reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be two years and six months.

1. Scope of adjudication and summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court of first instance rendered a judgment of innocence only with respect to the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant, and only the Defendant appealed with respect to the judgment of the first instance court. As such, the part of the judgment of acquittal against the Defendant rendered by the first instance court is separated and confirmed as it is, and only the remainder of the judgment of conviction is subject to the judgment of this court.

B. The judgment of the court of this court on February 2, 2008, the following facts are examined: (a) mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to the fraud and attempted fraud of telephone financing in the market (2012 highest 6505 case), the Defendant merely delivered the down payment to the real estate business entity in the name of V, even though the office leased by V had a vague awareness that it was used for a tort; (b) the extent of the Defendant’s participation in the crime of fraud of telephone financing in the market (hereinafter “instant Bosing”) such as V cannot be considered as a co-principal who is not merely an aiding and abetting; and (c) unjust sentencing (all crimes committed at the market).

A. With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (2012 high-end 6505 case) (1) In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through functional control over the functional act based on the joint principal’s intent as a subjective element. Here, the intention of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to allow it without restraint. The purport of joint process is to “a single act to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and to shift one’s own intention to practice using another’s act” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6027, Aug. 30, 2012). Such intent of joint process is an essential element of functional control, and “act control” as referred to in this context.