The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is obvious that the defendant's act constitutes a joint principal offense such as fraud, such as mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles (public prosecutor) in collusion with the employees of Bosing, taking part in several times as a liability for cash delivery, and making an essential contribution to Bosing crimes, etc., it constitutes a crime of fraud, etc., the court below determined this part of the facts charged as not guilty of the reason, and held the defendant as

B. As to the decision of the court below on the unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the punishment is too high, and the prosecutor is too low to impose the punishment and thus, it is unfair.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a joint principal offender with respect to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the subjective requirement is the intent and objective requirement for joint processing, and the fact of execution of a crime through functional control by a joint doctor is required. As such, the intent of joint processing as such subjective requirement is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime but to accept it without preventing it, and it should be deemed as one for the purpose of conducting a specific criminal act with another person’s intention, and it should be deemed that the intent of joint processing as

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Do114 delivered on September 13, 198, 95Do2461 delivered on January 16, 1996, etc.). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court is justifiable to the effect that the Defendant’s relationship with the intention to jointly process or mutual use of the trade name, which the Defendant intended to move to the commission of the Defendant’s act by using his act, is not proven without reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. There seems to be no conclusive intent on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing in relation to the allegation of unfair sentencing by both parties.