A. Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was known to the effect that the Defendant withdrawn the money relating to singing, and the so-called “singing” was unaware of the so-called “singing.” There was no intention to commit the crime of attack.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. As to the sentence of the court below (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, Defendant B: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months), the defendants asserts that the defendants are too unfasible and the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime through a joint processing and the intent to realize a crime. Thus, if the combination of the intent is carried out in a successive or implied manner, the conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such conspiracy was carried out, even those who did not directly participate in the act, are held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another accomplice. As such, the principal offender of the crime was unaware of the method of the crime.

Even if there is no possibility of denying a conspiracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). The crime of Bosing is an organized crime with various stages of points, such as the role of deceiving and threatening a victim, the role of soliciting a passbook or cash card, the role of collecting money transferred by the victims, the role of withdrawing the money transferred or collecting the money from the victims, the role of delivering the money from the victims to the domestic or foreign books, and the role of delivering the money collected or collected to the general public.