The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

A seized receipt.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) of Defendant (one year, six months, and confiscation) is excessively unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) The Defendant conspired with a person who has no name but to commit the instant crimes, and thus, the Defendant is deemed to be a joint principal offender. However, the lower court, which was determined otherwise and recognized only as an aiding and abetting (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) was unfair (see e.g., misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles). 2) The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing).

A. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) Joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act are established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, namely, criminal conduct through a functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the intent of joint processing.

The so-called crime liability as a joint principal offender may be imposed even in cases where a person who has not directly shared and executed part of the constituent acts among the conspiracys. However, in order to avoid such crime, considering the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. in the entire crime, it should be recognized that the functional control of the crime exists through essential contribution to the crime rather than just the conspiracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6570, Sept. 12, 2013). In order for the joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to establish the crime through the functional control based on the joint doctor’s intent and objective requirements.

Joint processing intention is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without preventing it, and it should be one of the joint intent to conduct a specific criminal act, and it should be to shift one's own intention to implement another's act by using another person's act.

Therefore, the common principal is the common principal.