A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with regard to the conclusion of the removal construction contract by Co-defendant A and the victim G, the Defendant merely explained the contents of the construction project as the representative of the executor and signed only on the participants column of the removal construction contract, and did not participate in the above removal construction contract. Furthermore, even in the case where the above A received money from the victim G as the borrowed money, there is no fact that Co-Defendant A and the victim G did not request the victim G

Ultimately, although the Defendant conspired with the above A to take part in the crime of this case, the lower court recognized that the Defendant conspiredd with the above A to obtain money from the victim as described in the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the misunderstanding of facts or accomplice.

B. The lower court’s sentence (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the conspiracy is not a legally required type of punishment, but a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize the crime. Thus, even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, those who did not directly participate in the execution are held liable as a co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's duly adopted and examined evidence, such as the examination of the defendant's prosecutor's office, etc.