Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant C) ① Defendant C was sent to Defendant A “the form of a civil petition for tracking a financial account (hereinafter “the form of this case”) in response to the request of an employee engaging in phishing (one named J, hereinafter “J”), but such act alone cannot be deemed to have performed a functional control over each of the crimes of this case. Thus, Defendant C did not have an intent to commit fraud or joint processing.

(2) A household, Defendant C had the intent to commit fraud and to jointly process it.

Even before J and Defendant A started the commission of each of the crimes in this case, they already left the public contest relationship.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (defendant A: imprisonment of one year and eight months; imprisonment of one year and four years) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants’ authority, in the first instance court, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment against the Defendants as in the attached Form “Revised Facts charged,” and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed by granting permission. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the Defendant’s case cannot be maintained as it is.

However, Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles of Defendant C) As to the accomplice relationship in which more than two persons are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. As such, the process of the whole conspiracy is the process.