A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (a punishment of three years of imprisonment and fine of one hundred million won, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is merely a request for assistance by Defendant B to exchange a cashier’s check with a face value of KRW 13 billion at the face value of 13 billion issued by Company I (hereinafter “instant bonds with warrants”). Defendant A received a cashier’s check with a face value of KRW 390 million at the face value after the completion of the acquisition.

After all, Defendant B is merely an aiding and abetting the instant crime by Defendant A, and is not liable as a co-principal.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to commit the instant crime is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (two years and six months of imprisonment and fine of KRW 100 million, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

A. In relation to the relevant legal doctrine as co-offenders, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons’ intent to realize a crime by co-processing together, and the conspiracy is established even in the case where several persons are engaged in a group of intent either in a successive or implied manner.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but if the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that are relevant to the nature of the object.