A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) Each fraud: The Defendant did not have any awareness or intent that he/she was involved in each of the instant frauds; nor did the Defendant conspiredd with any person who was unaware of the name of the Defendant. 2) The Defendant believed that he/she would have been able to obtain a loan by creating transaction performance; and there was no awareness or intention that he/she would facilitate the commission of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on each fraud jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. If the combination of intent is made in a successive or implicit manner, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution shall be held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

Therefore, it cannot be denied the public-private partnership relationship even though the public-private partnership's method of deception was different in detail from that of deception.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). The aforementioned public offering may be recognized by circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence.

In addition, in a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent along with a conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements have to be proved by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent given the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation to the criminal intent is normal.