The view of not fully denying the application of accomplice regulations to non-punishable opponents has fallen into a formal and logical circular argument that only provides formal grounds for non-punishment and has failed to provide practical grounds. In addition, it can be said that it has a criminal policy problem contrary to the legal sentiment of the general public by not punishing the active government travel activities of non-punishable accomplices. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, it is necessary to respect the legislator's intention that general non-punishment accomplices can be punished if they exceed the 'minimum government travel commission'. Therefore, if an unpunishable accomplice acts at least within the act required to realize the constituent requirements, the application of the accomplice regulations shall be excluded, and the accomplice regulations shall be applied only if they exceed that extent. In addition, if the indispensable counterparty is a protected person or has no responsibility (possibility of expectation), it can be said that it has provided a practical basis for the inability to punish, so it can be understood as impossible to punish. This interpretation method is thought to be able to present concrete validity in marginal cases where the counterparty is more responsible by substantially presenting the basis for an unpunishable accomplice.