The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, has already been able to commit a crime under Party B’s resolution to avoid committing a crime, is merely the same, and only the Defendant, not the crime of aiding and abetting the criminal, constitutes only the crime of aiding

The defense counsel stated that all the charges are admitted by the defendant while making the final statement at the second trial date, but it is not clear whether to withdraw the above misapprehension of legal principles or not, so the court below judges it as follows.

B. The sentence imposed by the court of original judgment on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The act of having another person make himself/herself make a false confession on his/her behalf and thereby leading another person to commit the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal through the abuse of his/her right of defense constitutes the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal.

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7647 Decided November 13, 2008). Meanwhile, a principal of a crime is established when a principal of a crime passes a resolution to commit the crime, and the principal of the crime must pass a resolution to commit the crime by the principal of the crime. Since the principal of the crime must pass a resolution to commit the crime, if the principal of the crime has already passed a resolution to commit the crime, the principal of the crime may not be established, but the method of the principal of the crime is not limited.

Therefore, in order to establish a crime, it is not necessary to guide the principal offender to specify detailed matters, such as the time, place, method, etc. of the crime, and it is sufficient to cause the principal offender to pass a resolution to commit a certain crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do542 delivered on May 14, 1991, etc.). The circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of original judgment and the court of original instance, namely, ① A, a principal offender of the crime of capital flight, appeared in the court of original instance as a witness of the court of original instance and stated that he was defective in 'B, a principal offender of the crime of capital flight, as a witness of the court of original instance, and 'B, a witness of the crime of capital flight,' and the Defendant