The judgment below

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

Defendant

Punishment against A shall be KRW 5 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A (1) was the fact that Defendant A introduced Victim G to Defendant C and B, Defendant C and B did not introduce the victim G to induce investment, but did not know the fact that Defendant C and B attempted to commit the crime of defraudation against the victim, so there is no possibility that Defendant C and B committed the instant fraud in collusion with Defendant C and B.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. (1) Determination as to the establishment of a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is that two or more persons jointly commit a crime. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, a subjective requirement is the intent of joint processing and objective requirements, and the fact of implementation of a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor. A joint principal offender’s intent is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to deny it without restraint, and it should be one of the two with intent to commit a specific criminal act as a joint principal offender and to shift his/her intent to practice by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008). Meanwhile, the essence of a joint principal offender is a functional control by division of occupational roles.

As a joint principal offender is a functional control by a joint doctor, it is distinguished between the two in that the principal offender has no control over the act (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do1247 delivered on April 11, 1989, etc.).