A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant is only aware of the fact that he was convicted of imprisonment with prison labor for one year on July 2, 2013, which was sentenced to a judgment of conviction on July 8, 2013, but died on December 25, 2013) of KRW 80,000,000 as stated in the facts charged (Evidence No. 17 of the evidence record, hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) from A (the Defendant was indicted together with the Defendant, and the Defendant appealed on July 2, 2013, but was killed on December 25, 2013)

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention to forge the private document or to display the private document, and it cannot be deemed that there is a conspiracy with A.

(2) Although the amount of KRW 80 million remitted to the victim was received from the victim A, the defendant thought that he borrowed the above money to the victim, and the victim was aware that he borrowed the above money to the victim.

In addition, since the victim had a cash custody certificate of this case stated as the debtor, the defendant files a civil suit against the victim on this basis.

Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the defendant had the intention of fraud.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous determination of facts against the Defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there is no legally required punishment, and there is only two or more persons’ combinations of intent to realize a crime through the joint processing of the two or more persons. As such, there is a conspiracy between several persons in a case where a combination of intent is made in a successive or implicit manner.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is the subjective element of the crime.