Therefore, the defendant cannot be recognized as not guilty of conspiracy with B, attempted fraud, and violation of telecommunications business law.

2. Determination

A. In the relation of co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime by not less than two legal principles, 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 there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a mutual understanding that there is no need to do so even if there is a conspiracy between the two or more accomplices in order or impliedly, and in this case, it is sufficient that there is a mutual understanding that each accomplice is in part of the constituent elements or is in part of the constituent elements, and that each accomplice is in part of the constituent elements.

As long as such public offering has been made, even those who have not been directly involved in the conduct shall be held liable as a joint principal offender for the conduct of others, and the joint principal offender who has been aware of the method of deception in detail.

Even if a public offering cannot be denied, and where a defendant denies a public offering along with the fact of the public offering, the facts constituting such subjective elements are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the public offering by nature of the subject matter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008; 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). Meanwhile, the facts constituting a criminal element are subjective elements.