The guilty portion of the judgment below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Nos. 2 through 6 of seized evidence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the conviction of the Defendant (as to the judgment below’s conviction) and (1): the Defendant was not willing to commit a crime of extortion with his name-free persons, nor was he participated therein, and it cannot be viewed as a principal offender for the crime of extortion.

(2) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act: The defendant was only sent a door-to-door stuff while he/she is unaware of whether he/she carries a check card and did not have any awareness or intent that he/she will take over the check card.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) misleads the victim of the fact (as to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment), conspired with the victim in collusion.

(2) In violation of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies, a separate sentence was not imposed on a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

(3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, based on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s conflict, is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint processing.

The so-called crime liability as a joint principal offender may be imposed even when a person who has not directly shared and implemented part of the constituent requirements among the conspiracys. However, in order to prevent such crime, considering the status, role, control of the progress of the crime, etc. in the entire crime, it should be recognized that there exists a functional control through the essential contribution to the crime rather than just the person who has committed the crime.

In addition, the means and attitudes of crime, the number of participants and their tendency, the time and the characteristics of the place of crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of crime and anticipated reaction, etc.