The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

evidence of seizure.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) took part in the act of withdrawing money deposited in the account with the instructions of the management staff and then remitting money to the management staff without knowing that the management staff members of Bosing singing singing singing singing singing singing singing sing singing sing sing sing sing sing sing s

Therefore, the Defendants conspired to commit the crime of attacking with the employees of Bosing phishing

Although it cannot be seen, the judgment of the first instance that found all of the facts charged against the Defendants guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

【The first sentence against the illegal defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and one year) are too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that each of the first deliberation penalties against the Defendants by the Prosecutor is too unfasible.

2. Determination:

A. (1) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles relating to (i) joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act committed a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order for joint principal offenders to be established, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, with the intention of joint process and objective requirement, and the joint principal intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with the intent of joint principal, and to move one’s own intent by using another person’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 200, etc.). Such joint principal intention is insufficient only to recognize another person’s criminal act but not to restrain it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200).