1. According to the records of Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, Defendant A appealed the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground of unreasonable sentencing.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. As to the assertion that Defendant A did not conspired with two or more persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and as long as such conspiracy was made, even those who did not directly participate in the execution, are held liable as a co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly admitted. Defendant B’s criminal proceeds naturally include Defendant B’s act of purchasing game items or exchanging them by selling the game items using the cell phone on which another person’s ID and core chips are installed, and even though Defendant B did not directly share the act of purchasing game items or exchanging them by selling the game items by using the cell phone on which another person’s ID and core chips are installed.

Even if Defendant B and Defendant A implicitly conspired to commit the crime of fraud by using computers, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the crime of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act, and there was a relationship to increase mutual interests through continuous transactions, and thus, Defendant B and Defendant B are co-principals.