A. Defendant C, such as Defendant C’s misunderstanding of the facts, did not have conspiredd with other Defendants to commit the instant crime, did not deceiving the victims, and did not intend to defraud them, but the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the instant charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts or the principal offender of the public offering.

The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) which was unreasonably unfair is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A and D’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the co-offender relationship in which two or more persons on the assertion, such as Defendant C’s mistake of facts, etc., are co-offenders who jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize such crime. As such, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner and a combination of doctors, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). Furthermore, insofar as the defendant does not confession, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective circumstances such as the defendant’s financial power before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, transaction process, relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014).