A. Although the Defendant was not involved in the act of fraud using the computer, etc. of this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts are co-offenders who jointly process a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons, and the conspiracy of intent is established in order or impliedly, if the combination of intent is achieved, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, those who did not directly participate in the act of execution are held liable as co-principal for the other co-offenders’ acts.

Therefore, the joint principal offender of fraud was unaware of the method of deception in detail.

Even if a public-private partnership cannot be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, telephone financial fraud, such as the instant crime, consists of not only the general responsibility, but also the role of sharing the volume of access media solicitation, delivery, cash withdrawal, and remittance, and is operated in the form of an braille in preparation for the tracking of the investigative agency. The Defendant served as the withdrawal of the aforementioned telephone financial fraud organization, the remittance liability, and the Defendant was aware by the investigative agency that the amount was deposited by the victims due to Bosishing, etc.

As such, it is related to the fraud of using the computer of this case.