The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant introduced the “J”, which is an illegal futures account lending company, to its members while running the securities broadcasting of “I”, and mediates its membership and received the payment, the Defendant was thought to have actually concluded through the H program of the said “J”. As such, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud, nor did he conspired with E, etc. to commit the instant crime.

(2) Even if the criminal intent and conspiracy of the criminal intent and the criminal defendant's deception are recognized, the defendant promised to receive 40% of the commission incurred in the course of the trade of the victims who have been recruited by the defendant from E, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the total amount of the deposits of futures trading deposited by the victims is

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

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is that two or more co-principals under Article 30 of the Criminal Act jointly commit a crime. In order to constitute a co-principal, it is necessary to commit a crime through functional control by a co-principal who is a subjective element, and that the co-principal’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001). Such intent of co-processing is insufficient even though it is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime but to accept it without restraint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200). It is not necessary to establish a prior conspiracy of a crime plan, and each co-offender does not necessarily constitute an act related to the elements of a crime.