A. The Defendant was aware of each of the instant crimes, and did not know whether each of the instant crimes was a laundry crime.

Therefore, there was no intention that the defendant was involved in the criminal act of Bosing.

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the facts charged of this case guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The defendant alleged the same purport in the court below, while making a claim to the same purport, and recognized all the facts charged in this case on the fourth public trial date, and the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the grounds as stated

2) In the case of accomplices who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime, and thus, 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 relationship of conspiracy is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution, even if they were to be involved in the act of execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002). The crime of fraud is established by willful negligence. It is also established by willful negligence. It is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, which allows it by expressing that the possibility of the occurrence of the crime of negligence is uncertain, and there was an willful negligence.

In order to do so, there is a awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, as well as the risk of the crime.