A. As to the remaining crimes except for paragraph (1) of the list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant E (Defendant E), Defendant E was conspired by Defendant E since it was necessary for Defendant E to obtain a loan and it was committed by stealing the authorized certificate and a copy of identification card delivered by Defendant E.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced Defendant E guilty has an error of misconception of facts.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months and confiscation; imprisonment for ten months and confiscation; imprisonment for six months and defendant D; imprisonment for six months and 4 months) imposed by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (the defendant A); and is unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons of the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only two or more persons of the conspiracy to jointly process a certain crime and realize the crime. Although there was no conspiracy of the entire conspiracy, if the combination of the intent is made in order or secretly through several persons, the conspiracy of conspiracy is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the execution of the conspiracy, are held liable as a co-principal for the other conspiracy’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, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). Based on such legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the first instance and the first instance court, namely, (i) in the first instance court; and (ii) in the event of the smuggling money at the time, Defendant E still remains in mind, cell phone openings, TV sirens even after the opening of G3 mobile phones as stated in paragraph (1) of the List of Offenses Act.