A. In order to obtain a loan, the Defendant merely withdrawn 20 million won deposited in the Defendant’s account in cash according to the direction of the employee of the lending company and delivered it to the borrower’s employee. There was no person who conspireds to commit the instant Bosing fraud with the nameless winners, and there was no intention to obtain the money, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact, and thereby, convicted the Defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of accomplices, two or more misunderstandings of facts do not require any legal punishment, but only if two or more persons agree to realize a crime by co-processing a crime by committing a crime, the conspiracy relationship is established if the two or more persons agree to realize a crime in a successive or implicit manner, and even those who did not participate directly in the act of the other offenders shall be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of the other offenders.

Therefore, the joint principal offender of fraud was unaware of the method of deception in detail.

Even if a public offering cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997; 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, in order to obtain a loan from an employee of a lending company, the Defendant is required to make a deposit with the Defendant as if he/she had a large amount of financial transactions, so that he/she can be seen as having a credit, so if he/she deposits KRW 20 million from the lending company to the Defendant account, he/she can recover it in cash and return it to the Defendant account. However, if the Defendant appears to have a credit in order to examine the Defendant’s loan eligibility, a lending contract will be concluded at least.