A. Defendant (Defendant B) was not at all involved in the crime Nos. 6 through 12 of the crime list in the judgment of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which sentenced the defendant guilty on the premise that the defendant was recruited up to this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each punishment sentenced by the first instance court (the Defendants) (one year, October, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of accomplices who are jointly processed by two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons who conspired to process a certain crime and realize such crime, and thus, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons, if the combination of doctors is made successively or implicitly, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who are not directly involved in the execution should be held criminal liability as a joint principal offender for the conduct of other competitors even if they are not directly involved in the execution.

Therefore, the joint principal offender of fraud was unaware of the method of deception in detail.

Even if a public-private partnership cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court based on such legal doctrine, Defendant B sufficiently recognized that a public-private partnership was established in order or secretly, and insofar as such public-private partnership is recognized, Defendant B did not directly participate in the act of committing the crime No. 6 or 12, as stated in the judgment of the first instance.

Even if other accomplices are involved in the act, they are criminal liability as a joint principal offender.