The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months.

. Prosecutors;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A(1) and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant sought jobs of the part-time company through a normal procedure.

I think it is nothing more than that of performing duties according to the direction of the company, but the defendant did not know at all whether the duties of the defendant served as a so-called delivery liability for the crime of Bosing fraud.

It can be seen that the defendant was involved in the crime of Bosing fraud.

Even if the role of the defendant is limited to aiding and abetting, the defendant's joint processing will and functional control cannot be recognized as a joint principal offender.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the conduct, etc. at the time of the crime committed by Defendant B by the public prosecutor, although it may be recognized that Defendant B committed the above crime with dolusor intent to assist at least the crime of Bosing fraud, the court below acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the circumstances such as (1) determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the reasoning of the lower judgment duly adopted and investigated by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in collusion with the name and incompetence of the organization of the criminal act of the criminal act of licensing, with the awareness that the Defendant was involved in the criminal act of licensing, can be sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's above assertion.