At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime are not required under the law, but there are two or more persons who conspired to commit a crime and to realize the crime.

Even if there was no master process of the entire conspiracy, if a combination of doctors takes place in order or impliedly between several persons, a public contest relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the conduct should be held liable as a co-principal for the act of the other co-principal, and even if there was no direct evidence for such a public contest, it can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules without any direct evidence.

(2) In the case of a co-principal, there is no need to decide in detail the specific date, time, place, contents, etc. of the conspiracy with respect to the conspiracy, and the mere fact that the agreement with the intention to commit the crime has been reached (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do2930, Mar. 8, 1996; 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In addition, the recognition of criminal facts should have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act); the choice of facts and probative value of evidence based on the premise of the recognition of facts belongs to the freedom of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the fabrication of private documents, the uttering of falsified documents, and the part of Defendant C’s non-determination.