A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant engaged in tele-marketing business that solicits a large passbook according to the direction of the “C”, which is the total book for solicitation of a large passbook among the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not know all of the withdrawal total book or any other false names, and the Defendant did not commit a fraud by using computers, etc. in collusion with them.

(2) Specific part of the crime (related to paragraphs (2) and (3) of the crime committed in the judgment of the court below) only commenced after March 2015 the solicitation of subscription to the passbook.

Of the criminal facts of the court below as of February 16, 2015 and the criminal facts of the court below as of February 2, 2015, the act No. 2 No. 1 (K, the account name) in the crime No. 3 as of the court below is not an act by the defendant, but an act No. 2 (U, the account name), No. 4 (V, the account name), and No. 9 (W, the account name) in the criminal facts of the court below as of February 16, 2015.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In a case where two or more persons jointly process a crime (related to a crime in the original judgment), the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Thus, even if there is an implicit agreement among several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established if some of the competitors do not directly share part of the elements of a crime and do not implement it, considering the status and role of them in the whole crime, or control or neglect of the progress of the crime, the functional control over the crime through an essential contribution to the crime exists, rather than a simple conspiracy.