2. In the relation of accomplices who are co-processed with two or more judgment-making persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime through the joint processing of a crime, and if the combination of their intent is formed in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established. A person who does not directly participate in the conduct at least after such conspiracy is 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 Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706 Decided September 12, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant is required to deposit a certain amount of money in the Defendant’s account in order to obtain a loan of KRW 26 million, including Q and exchange from the employees of the lending company, and thus, if his spouse transfers KRW 58 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, he shall recover it in cash and deliver it to the employee he sent, and if he concludes a loan contract after receiving the said money, he argued that the Defendant had ordered the Defendant to withdraw the facts charged, but if it is required to deposit a certain amount in the Defendant’s account in order to examine the Defendant’s loan eligibility, such deposit shall be made.