2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine 1) In a case where an appraiser designated by the court did not know whether the appraisal result stated in the appraisal document is correct because there is no substantial appraisal, but if he prepared and submitted a report to the court as if he had performed a real appraisal business, a crime of false appraisal under Article 154 of the Criminal Act is established (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do988, Apr. 7, 2006; 2010Do9430, Jan. 24, 2013). 2) In a co-offender relationship where two or more persons jointly commit a crime, a public offering does not require any legal fixed penalty, and there is a combination of intent to jointly realize a crime by two or more persons.

Although there was no parent process in the whole, there was no parent process.

Even if there is a conspiracy between many people, if there is a combination of doctors gradually or implicitly, a conspiracy relationship is established.

If a public offering is acknowledged, a person who is not directly involved in the act of the public offering shall be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another public offering, and such public offering may be recognized in accordance with the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006, etc.). B. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the court below and the court below duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the court below can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant participated in the preparation of a false appraisal report, such as F, etc., so the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant.

(1) The F does not have any substantial appraisal on the building of this case.

F. F. F. 2015.