A. Defendant A (Definite Error, and unreasonable sentencing) was presumed to have been involved in the delivery from January 2014 to the police officer on March 2014. However, even though the Defendant was presumed to have been aware that he had been involved in the delivery, there was no conspiracy with the person who actually engaged in the crime of Bophishing and had been engaged in any conspiracy with the person who actually engaged in the crime of Bophishing (the Defendant alleged that from January 2, 2013 of the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment, the part of the “cash received to Defendant A, etc. from January 2, 2013,” among the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment, is likely to cause misunderstanding as to the timing of participation, but it is evident that the Defendant was involved in the crime from January 2014.

(2) 2) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A, two years and six months, and the sentence of confiscation is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B and C (unfair punishment) and one year and confiscation sentenced to Defendant B, and two years and six months and six months of imprisonment with prison labor sentenced to Defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts

A. A crime of fraud may be established even with the intention of a criminal fraud which permits the possibility of the occurrence of the applicable criminal facts, indicating that the possibility of the occurrence of the criminal facts is uncertain.

In addition, in relation to accomplices who are co-processed with more than two persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize the crime, and even if there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there is no specific method of deception, the conspiracy relationship cannot be denied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013). In a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation and conspiracy, indirect facts or indirect facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the subject matter.