The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant did not participate in the fraud related to the execution of the exchange contract with the victim P in the instant case No. 2011 high-ranking7721 and the subsequent implementation of the transfer registration procedure.

(2) Since the construction project was being promoted by the Defendant in the case No. 2012 Go-Ba4389 was not well carried out, the Defendant was not able to repay the money borrowed from the victims and did not have the intent to acquire it by fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act (A) is jointly and severally committed by two or more persons. As to the establishment of joint principal offender, the subjective element of the joint principal offender is the intent of joint processing and objective requirements, and the fact of execution of a crime through functional control based on the joint intent is necessary, and the intention of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to accept it without restraint, and it should be one of the joint intent to commit a specific criminal act, and the purport of the joint principal offender should be to move by using another person’s act to the execution of his/her own intent.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, a public offering is not required under the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003; 2002Do7477, Mar. 27, 2003; 2004Do7511, Jan. 27, 2005; 2004Do7511, Jan. 27, 2005; 2004Do7511, Jan. 27, 2005).