All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. As to the non-guilty portion of Defendant B by the Prosecutor, in full view of the following: (a) Defendant B, who was aware of the crime of the Defendant’s telephone financial fraud (hereinafter “ Bosing”), can fully recognize the fact that he participated in the public offering and participation in the public offering, by viewing the network, etc. with the knowledge of the crime of the Defendant’s telephone financial fraud (hereinafter “ Bosing”).

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted Defendant B.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the following facts are revealed: (a) comprehensively taking account of the following: (b) Defendant B’s movement route; (c) cash photographs discovered in the Handphone; and (d) the Messen dialogue between Defendant A and Defendant 5 million won; and (b) there is doubt as to whether Defendant B was aware of the Mesing crime by Defendant A.

However, the common principal offender’s intent of co-processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to accept it without restraint. The purport of co-processing is to ensure that one’s own intent is transferred by using another person’s act as a whole in order to commit a specific criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do747, Mar. 28, 2003, etc.). In such a case, there was no evidence that Defendant B’s Handphone did not prove that he received the direction from the licensing organization.

There is no question as to what kind of request was made by Defendant A to help or what contents were requested if it was received.

Defendant

It is only recognized that there was a fact at the scene B, and if there was any abnormal sign while closely observing the surroundings of the crime place, the defendant A was prepared to be informed immediately.

The evidence is also insufficient.

The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.