The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the Defendant, without recognizing the commission of the phishing crime, received money with the knowledge of the Internet gambling fund, the Defendant cannot be recognized as a joint principal offender for a crime of fraud, such as fraud, computer, etc.

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

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and at the court below, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case as stated below (the grounds for re-written judgment). Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further in this respect.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal principles is jointly committing a crime. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, the joint principal offender is required to have committed a crime through joint processing intent and functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and to shift his/her intent to practice by using another person’s act. Such joint principal offender’s intent is not sufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but to accept it without restraint. However, there is a mutual understanding that each accomplice does not necessarily require prior conspiracy of a criminal plan, and that each accomplice satisfies the constituent requirements or shares his/her actions in essence related to the constituent requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 2008 delivered on September 11, 2008).