The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant committed an act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is inconsistent with the fact-finding, but did not recognize that the Defendant’s act at the time was involved in licensing.

Therefore, since the defendant did not have the intention of co-processing, the defendant should be liable for the crime of aiding and abetting.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the court below that the defendant constitutes a co-principal.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts as to the degree of participation and misapprehension of legal principles. 1) Joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act committed a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute joint principal offenders, it is necessary to commit a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective element, and functional control by a joint doctor, which is an objective element (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001). The intent of joint process should be one of the joint intent to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of another and shift one’s own intent to commit a specific criminal act by using another’s act. The conspiracy is not required under the law, but is a combination of intent to commit a crime through joint processing of a crime by two or more persons, and if such combination is carried out in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established, and insofar as such conspiracy is not carried out, a joint principal offender is not aware of another person’s criminal liability as a joint principal offender even if he/she did not directly participate in the act (see, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20017Do6.