1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant

A. The public offering in a joint co-offender relationship with more than two accomplices who intend to commit a crime is not required under law, but is sufficient to contact directly or indirectly with other accomplices who intend to commit a crime, and even if there is no direct evidence thereof, it can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules.

In addition, the joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment of the elements of the crime by an accomplice himself/herself, and it is also possible to cooperate with the accomplice who performs the realization act to strengthen his/her decision on the act. Whether it is applicable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do2905, Apr. 26, 2012; 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). 2) The lower court determined that the Defendant conspired with F, and determined the amount of KRW 2 billion in cash as the main solicitation related to the suspension of execution from G around June 26, 2015; 200 billion in cash as the main solicitation related to Q Q 100,000,000 won from G’s 100,000 won under the pretext of solicitation related to the suspension of execution.

3) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.