A. Although the defendant conspireds to commit the crime of this case, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not required under the law as to the conspiracy in which two or more persons jointly commit a crime, but is a combination of intent of two or more persons to jointly realize a crime.

Although there was no parent process in the whole, there was no parent process.

Even if there is a conspiracy between many people, if there is a combination of doctors gradually or implicitly, a conspiracy relationship is established.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the court below and the court below's duly adopted and investigated by the court below are sufficiently recognized, those who did not directly participate in the act of the crime of this case are held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another contest, and there is no direct evidence as to the above contest (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006, etc.). 2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's decision is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

① The representative director H of the Victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim F Co., Ltd”) falsely listed J’s wife N in the Defendant’s proposal as the employee of the Victim Company at the prosecution, and paid N wages to N., and J also proposed that the Defendant would be at the time of his life and at the prosecution, the Defendant would be at the time of making a false statement (Evidence No. 173 page) and that N would be at the time of his/her consent.