A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not instruct Defendant B to prepare guidance fees by means of deception, acceptance of bribery, etc. as stated in the facts charged of this case. Defendant A did not know such fact with regard to the preparation and exercise of false public documents, and the preparation and use of public electronic records and events. Defendant A shall be acquitted with respect to the remainder of the facts charged except the portion of the purchase of clothes led by Defendant A, but the judgment below which found Defendant A guilty with the whole of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts, but the judgment below which found Defendant A guilty of unjust sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, in light of various circumstances, such as the means and form of crime, the number of participating persons and their inclinations, time and place of crime, possibility of contact with others in the course of crime, and anticipated and anticipated possible reaction with others, Defendant A’s joint principal offender in the relevant legal doctrine, the conspiracys could lead to the occurrence of other incidental crimes during the commission of the crime or attempt to achieve the purpose, but did not take any reasonable measures to prevent such possibility, and eventually, if the crime was anticipated to have occurred, it should be deemed that there was a functional control over the whole crime between the initial conspiracys, even if there was no contact with each other as to one of the derivative crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do14322, Apr. 19, 2018).