All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In fact, Defendant (1) merely dealt with duties according to F’s instructions as a simple employee and introduced S, and as S has developed E-computer, Defendant did not have conspired to commit the instant crime.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact is made upon meeting the subjective and objective requirements that the common principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is committing a crime through the functional control by the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-management. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the constituent requirements may be held liable for the so-called crime as a common principal offender depending on whether the aforementioned requirements are met.

In order to be recognized as a joint principal offender by directly sharing the elements of the organization, the functional control through essential contribution to the crime should be recognized not only as a simple person but also as a person of the organization by comprehensively taking into account his/her position and role in the entire crime, control over the progress of the crime, and the record of bad faith.

At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not require any legal penalty, but there is sufficient combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons in collusion.

Although there is no process of the whole mother, there is a competitive relationship if the combination of doctors is made in order or implicitly between many people.

In order to recognize such a conspiracy, strict proof is required, but if the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is necessary to prove the indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the nature of the crime.