A. Although Defendant 1, such as misunderstanding of facts, etc., conspireds with Defendant D, etc. and victim I (hereinafter “I”) to deceive 2.16 million won in total, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons on the part of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, etc., the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons' intent to jointly process a certain crime and realize such crime, and there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner, and the combination of doctors is established, even those who did not directly participate in the act of the execution, if the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the fact of the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements are bound to be proved by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts which have a substantial relation with the criminal intent in light of the nature of the object. In this case, the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3284, Sept. 11, 2008). In light of the health stand in this case, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the following circumstances, etc., the defendant is bound to prove it by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts which have a considerable relation with the criminal intent.