A. The Defendants, misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, voluntarily suspended the act of committing the instant crime and returned KRW 100 million to the J.

The judgment of the court below did not apply the reduction or exemption of punishment for the attempted suspension to the Defendants. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (one year and six months of each imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the Defendants started the commission of a crime by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles and suspended the commission of a crime by their own free will before the crime is completed, such suspension constitutes an attempted crime (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do640 delivered on April 13, 1999, etc.). Meanwhile, if there are other accomplices, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ withdrawal of criminal intent or attempted suspension even if the Defendants waiver of the crime was not possible (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8259 delivered on February 25, 2005, etc.) by taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on comprehensive evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ voluntary discontinuance of the crime was difficult to find that the Defendants’ voluntary discontinuance of the crime was difficult due to the lack of sufficient time to make a statement during the process of investigation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8259 delivered on February 25, 2005).