The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of the part concerning the crime of fraud and special robbery against the defendant in mistake of facts (hereinafter “the part concerning the denial of judgment”), the defendant is merely an aiding and abetting offender for the crime committed by Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “Co-Defendant C”), and cannot be deemed as a co-principal and joint crime with C. However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the part concerning the denial of judgment against the defendant in whole is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is a joint principal offender. In order to establish a joint principal offender, the subjective requirement is the intention of joint process and objective requirements, which requires the fact of implementation through functional control based on the joint doctor. The intention of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to deny it without restraint. It should be one of the joint principal offenders with intent to commit a specific criminal act as a joint principal, and it should be with intent to shift one’s own intent to commit a specific criminal act by using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008). Since the essence of joint principal offender is in functional control by division of roles, joint principal offender is distinguishable from each other in that it has no control over the functional act by joint principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 11, 1989).