[Attachment 2014] [Attachment 729] 2101] and [Attachment 2014] and [Attachment 9253].

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the 2014 Highest 729 case), the defense counsel at the appellate court’s fourth trial date, 2014 Highest 9253 cases, which were stated in the judgment of the appellate court, filed a assertion of mistake of facts as to 31 times each time of the attached crime list 2, 2, and 31. Thus, it is not determined separately.

The defendant, at the request of the victim F, who was aware of the contents and investment terms of the D business in advance and found an office, has confirmed the terms and conditions of the contract through C and has attempted to deliver the investment amount, and there is no act of receiving similar money in collusion with C or by deceiving the victim F.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (each of the offenses listed in the holding of the 2014 senior group 729,2101 case and each of the offenses listed in the 2014 senior group 9253 attached to the judgment of the 2014 senior group: Imprisonment with prison labor; 4 months; 2014 senior group 9253; 5 or 41 attached to the judgment of the 9253 senior group : Imprisonment with prison labor; 6 months; confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the allegation of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the conspiracy in which two or more persons jointly process the crime is not required under the law, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process the crime and realize the crime, and there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there are two or more persons, a public contest relationship is established if a combination of doctors is made successively or implicitly between them, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution should be held accountable as a joint principal offender for the act of another person. The above public contest can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and experience rules even if there is no direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2144, Jun. 1, 2007; 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006).