The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B, C, and D among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

B, C, and D shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In addition, Defendant A did not have any specific conspiracy with other accomplices to commit the instant fraud, and there was no knowledge about whether other accomplices committed the said fraud, and whether the transferred money was acquired through the said fraud.

Therefore, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case, although there is no evidence to prove that Defendant A’s act satisfies the subjective and objective requirements, such as the intent to jointly process the instant fraud and the execution of a crime through functional control by the joint will. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of a joint principal offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, Defendant B, C, and D: each of the eight months) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A’s joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is a joint principal offender. In order to constitute joint principal offender, it is necessary to conduct a crime through a functional control by the joint principal’s intent, which is subjective element and objective element. Joint principal offender’s intent is one of the joint principal offenders to commit a specific criminal act, and it is not sufficient to recognize another’s criminal act, but to accept it without restraint. However, there is a mutual agreement between each accomplice and his/her accomplice to commit a specific criminal act or share an act in essence related to the elements (see Supreme Court).