A. The Defendant was only responsible for management, such as turning over or turning off all the communication equipment according to the direction of the “B” in China, without gathering that communication equipment as indicated in the judgment of the court below was used for the Bosing crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the instant fraud and Telecommunications Business Act.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was arrested and detained and actively cooperated in the investigation by informing another place (Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul) where communication equipment exists, the Defendant did not have any profits earned from the instant crime, the Defendant merely managed communication equipment, not by deception, and the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea and did not have any criminal history other than sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act in 2013, the sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts are co-offenders who jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there are no procedures of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the doctors is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution are held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

Therefore, it cannot be denied the public-private partnership relationship even though the public-private partnership's method of deception was different in detail from that of deception.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997; 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013); and such.