Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Defendant

B.

A. Fact-finding (Defendant A) misunderstanding that the money that the Defendant withdrawn and deposited was related to the speculative game, but did not recognize that the money deposited by the Defendant was the money deposited by the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the crime.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (the Defendant A’s imprisonment and the Defendant B’s fine of KRW 7 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not a legally required type of punishment in the co-offender relationship that two or more persons jointly process for a crime, but a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. As such, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts did not have a whole conspiracy.

Even if there are two or more persons, a public contest relationship is established if a combination of doctors is made either successively or implicitly between them, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution is held liable as a principal offender for the act of another public contest. The above public contest can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules without any direct evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006, etc.). 2) The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and examined by the court below.

The above Defendant had contact with E (F) by posting a job offer advertisement, which was listed in the job offer job-seeking car page, which was established in the NAV, to work in accordance with the F’s direction. The above Defendant did not directly contact “F” or find it as an office.