A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts is Co., Ltd. E (hereinafter “instant company”).

In the form of the representative director, there is no fact that there was no direct investment recommendations from the victims, and there is no fact that there was deceiving victims in collusion with A.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) 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 penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons, and the conspiracy of intent is established in order or impliedly, if the combination of intent is achieved, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, any person who does not directly participate in the act of execution shall be held liable as a co-principal for the other co-offenders’ act.

Therefore, the joint principal offender of fraud was unaware of the method of deception in detail.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant did not directly encourage the victims to make an investment. In so doing, the lower court did not directly encourage the victims to make an investment.

Even if A conspired with victims to fully recognize the fact of deceiving money by deceiving victims, there is an error of law by mistake in the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

The victims have consistently explained the investment from an investigative agency to the court of original trial, and after introducing the defendant as the representative director, the victims explained the outline, etc. of the company.

was stated.

The defendant made every day an inquiry into an Accom and explained the project to investors.

The Defendant, the J, substantial.