A. The judgment of the court below which found Defendant J guilty of the crime of fraud against Defendant J, by misunderstanding the facts, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant P 1) misunderstanding of facts did not conspired with AT and criminal acts; Defendant P did not know that AT has forged financial statements and did not have the intention of deception; and even though the intent and ability to repay the loan principal and interest was sufficient, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant P guilty of the fraudulent criminal facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous determination of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant J, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, if the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such solicitation was made, a person who did not directly participate in the execution is held liable as a co-principal for the other co-offender’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 Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). Taking full account of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, Defendant J conspired with AT, BP, and BM as indicated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, and acquired KRW 360 million from the Victim Nonghyup Bank as loans.