The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below found that Co-Defendant A lent KRW 50 million to Co-Defendant A for the purpose of using the game machine price, etc., and did not operate the game room in collusion with the above A, etc., the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged against the defendant and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

Judgment

The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control by the intention of co-processing and the intention of co-processing. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the elements of a crime among the competitors may be held liable for the crime as a co-principal depending on whether the above requirements are met.

On the other hand, in order to be recognized as a co-principal by a conspiracy who did not directly divide and implement the elements of a crime as a co-principal, the functional control of the act through essential contribution to the crime should be recognized not only as a mere conspiracy, but also as a functional control over the crime by taking into account the status and role of him/her in the whole crime, or the control or power

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544 Decided July 15, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010). The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court pursuant to the aforementioned legal principles, namely, ① even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was well aware of the Defendant’s intention to operate the game room and delivered KRW 50 million to A with sufficient knowledge of the fact that he would use it for purchasing the game machine, ② the Defendant was asserting that he lent KRW 50 million to A in the process, but the Defendant did not prepare a certificate of borrowing, and the Defendant did not have any separate agreement on the interest or the repayment period. However, the Defendant lent the above money to A by borrowing from another person.