A. Of KRW 12,080,000 out of KRW 18,120,000 of the damage amount of No. 2 of the attached Table 2 of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below (Defendant B) was transferred from the victim AF’s national bank account to two bank accounts in the name of ar.

However, since the above account in the name of AR is not included in the attached Table 1-26 attached hereto, which is the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act of this case by Defendant B, the above defendant cannot be punished as a co-principal even in this part.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.

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

A. In the relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two legal principles, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons in a certain crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to conduct the crime in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relation is established, and even if there was no direct involvement in the conduct, even if there was a person who did not directly participate in the conduct, he/she is held liable as a co-principal for the act of another co-principal. Such conspiracy may be acknowledged in accordance with the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there was no direct evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494 delivered on December 24, 2004, etc.). B.

Judgment

Based on the above legal doctrine, Defendant B seems to have been fully aware of the fact that Defendant B was involved in the crime of telephone financial fraud (one name “Singing”), i.e., the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.