Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Nos. 3 and 4 of seized evidence A from Defendant A.

A. Defendant B did not commit a fraudulent crime such as the crime of the lower judgment in collusion with Defendant A or C.

However, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant B's crime of fraud is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year and three months for each of the Defendants) on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. If the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, even those who did not directly participate in the execution shall be held liable as a co-principal for the other co-offender’s act.

In addition, it is not possible to deny the public-private partnership relationship even though the public-private partnership fraud was not aware of the method of deception.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706 Decided September 12, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, Defendant A, who proposed a fraudulent crime to Defendant B, was aware that he/she was receiving money by telephone, etc. regarding the instant fraud, which is called “Scaming” (24 pages) and that he/she was aware that he/she was receiving money by the telephone, etc. (the investigation record 224 pages) and on August 1, 2014, Defendant B presented the instant crime to Defendant B on or around August 3, 2014, stating that “it is a fraud-related day, but is simply f7).” Defendant B was ordered to receive from Defendant Kwikkset on August 7, 2014.”