A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

No. 1, 2 of the evidence seized by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles recognized that his act was a recovery of claim, and did not know the fact that he was used for licensing. Therefore, the Defendant did not have conspired to commit the instant fraud. Even if the Defendant was held liable for the instant crime of fraud, the Defendant is not deemed to have functional control over the crime of fraud, so only an aiding and abetting person, not a joint principal offender, is established. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) with labor, too unreasonable, is unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles jointly process a criminal offense, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. If the agreement is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution should be held liable as a co-principal with regard to the other co-offenders' acts.

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.

(2) The Majority Opinion argues that an accomplice’s intent of co-processing is not sufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to accept it without restraint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do576, Apr. 7, 200). However, there is no need to establish a prior conspiracy to commit an offense plan, and each co-offender’s act constitutes the elements of a crime or is in essence relevant to the elements of a crime.