A. Defendant 1 did not commit singishing crimes in collusion with D, H, E, and F, but the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts. 2) In light of all the sentencing factors of the instant case of unfair sentencing, in so determining, the lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all of the sentencing conditions of the Prosecutor’s instant case, the lower court’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is only a combination of two or more persons’ intent to realize a crime through a joint processing. As such, there is a conspiracy between several persons, either in order or impliedly, and the combination of their intent is established.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but where the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the object, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the fact through close observation and analysis based on normal empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706 Decided September 11, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721 Decided December 22, 201, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant, jointly with D, H, E, and F, input personal information of the victims into a computer without authority.