The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

YB National Card (Y) 1 (No. 1), seized, KB National Card.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Although the Defendant’s act of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal principles constitutes a joint principal offender of Bohishing crimes, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

B. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely liable for a crime of aiding and abetting the part of KRW 6,180,000 deposited into L’s account among the instant facts charged, and even though not liable for a crime of aiding and abetting with respect to the remaining five accounts, the lower court recognized the establishment of a crime of aiding and abetting and abetting with regard to the money deposited into the remaining five accounts. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (whether a principal offender is a computer or any other crime of fraud)

A. Inasmuch as a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control by the intent to co-processing and the intent to jointly perform the functional control by the intent to jointly perform the act, a person who directly shared and did not implement the constituent act among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a joint principal offender depending on whether the above requirements are met.

On the other hand, in order for a competitor who did not directly participate in the act of organization to be recognized as a joint principal offender, he/she shall be recognized as having functional control over a crime through an essential contribution, not just a mere conspiracy, but also a functional control over a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010, etc.). In order for two or more persons to be recognized as a joint principal offender for a crime, the conspiracy is in a joint co-offender relationship that they process in the crime.