All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are limited to the participation in the business with the belief of E to operate temples and charnel facilities, and the Defendant A did not deceiving the victim in collusion with E. 2) The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant A is too unfeasible and unfair. 2) The Defendant B did not participate in the instant crime, but only lent only the name in the name of E, but Defendant B took part in the previous crime against the victim. However, at the time of the formation of the instant memorandum of Understanding, Defendant B was in the position at the time of the formation of the instant protocol of Understanding, and the victim’s statement corresponding to the instant facts charged was sufficiently trusted, and thus, the relationship of conspiracy with Defendant A is sufficiently recognized.

2. Judgment on Defendant A

A. Determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles regarding Defendant A’s assertion 1) The intention of joint processing, which is a subjective constituent element of a joint principal offense, is not necessarily required to express express expression of intent or communication, but to acknowledge implied communication, it is sufficient to acknowledge such implied communication. In order to recognize implied communication, there should be at least the same interest among accomplices, and there should be common consensus to the extent that they allow each other’s act while pursuing the same result. (2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A and E, aiming at the same outcome of the project of this case with the same interest, thereby allowing each other’s act.