A. The Defendant received a fraudulent damage amount from the victim and sent it to the designated account.

Of the victims E’s fraudulent damage amount, the Defendant only received KRW 20 million (in the statement of grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel, it is evident that the Defendant’s “30 million won” under the first page of the grounds of appeal submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel is a clerical error in the statement of grounds of appeal). The Defendant did not take part in relation to KRW 30 million received by the Defendant, KRW 40 million, and KRW 15.26 million received by the Defendant, and KRW 5.2 million, the Defendant did not constitute a joint principal offender in the crime of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation No. 2, 3, 6 and 8) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more co-offenders who jointly process a crime and intend to realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to jointly process and realize the crime among several accomplices, a conspiracy relationship is established if the agreement was made successively or implicitly, and as long as such conspiracy was made, even those who did not directly participate in the act of the commission are held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3483, Nov. 10, 200). In co-principal, it is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime but not allow it. However, it is sufficient that each co-offender’s intent to jointly process is sufficient to establish the elements of a crime or share the elements of a crime in essence among co-offenders (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do3483, Nov. 10, 200).