A. Defendant A (unfair imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts is a fact that Defendant B made efforts and attempted to deliver dances and services to Defendant A, and did not know the specific progress of the project in detail. Defendant B did not assist the commission of fraud due to the lack of his academic background or experience.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty only by the victim E's statement is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In determining the assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant B, the act of aiding and abetting and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender should have the intention to commit the act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and that the principal offender’s act constitutes the elements of a crime.

Since such intention is an in-depth fact, in a case where a defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove by means of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance with intention due to the nature of an object, and in this case, there is no other way to reasonably determine what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, the intention of the principal offender in aiding and abetting is not required to recognize the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but is sufficient to dolusence or prediction.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do6056, Apr. 29, 2005; 2010Do896, Oct. 11, 2012). (2) The health care unit for the instant case; and Defendant B did not assist and abetting Defendant A’s fraud as the grounds for appeal in this part.