A. The Defendant’s assertion (1) Although the Defendant had not conspireded to purchase a son or philogram, which was perceived as I and Meart clopon (hereinafter “copon”), the Defendant was guilty of all the facts charged against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation) is excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

B. The above sentence of the prosecutor's assertion by the court below is unfair compared to the defendant's liability.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts do not legally require a specific punishment, but only two or more persons intend to realize a crime by jointly processing a crime. Thus, if there is no process of the entire conspiracy, if a combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, even if there is no process of the entire conspiracy, the conspiracy is established.

In addition, strict proof is required to acknowledge such a conspiracy. However, in a case where the Defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of a crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the subject matter in light of the nature of the subject matter, and what constitutes an indirect fact at this time ought to be reasonably determined based on the ordinary empirical rule and based on the strict observation or analysis power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court and the trial, namely, ① “K” and “M”, etc.