A. The Defendants of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are sufficiently proven that there was a trade name that they share the actions in essence related to the crime, such as making phone calls to the person under whose name the victims committed the singishing crime, and receiving the singishing expenses in some cases, with a certain point of view to the overall structure of each singishing crime of this case.

Therefore, even though the Defendants are clear that they are co-principals of fraud, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the remainder of the charges except for the fraudulent part against Defendant B’s victim K, and recognized them as only the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, thereby misunderstanding facts, and misunderstanding the legal principles of co-principals, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one year and six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the judgment of the court below (1) of the facts charged of this case are as follows: (a) The false statement, such as the victim's misrepresentation of the investigation agency by telephone to the victims or harming lending the money to the account under the name of the Defendants; and (b) the Defendants, in collusion with the victims, intended to receive money from the victims by means of withdrawing the money transferred to their own account and delivering it to other accomplices designated by the names of the victims; and (c) in the same manner as the facts charged, the Defendants, in collusion with the victims, acquired money of KRW 16,00,000 from the victim K, KRW 21,00,000 from the victim Q, and KRW 21,00,000 from the victim Q, and Defendant B acquired money from the victim C, respectively.

(2) As to the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant B guilty only of the fraudulent part against Defendant B’s victim K, and the Defendants committed the crime.