The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A shall be one year and six months, and imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts by Defendant A did not commit a telecommunications financing fraud in Thailand (hereinafter “Singing crime”) from May 7, 2014 to October 30, 2014 in Thailand, from May 7, 2014 to October 30, 2014, since Defendant A did not commit a telecommunications financing fraud in Thailand (hereinafter “Singing crime”), Defendant A convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The Defendants alleged to be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the collection of additional charges by the prosecutor’s act as a member of a criminal organization for the crime of Bosing, and received money under the pretext of salary, etc. is subject to additional collection pursuant to Articles 8(1) and 10(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter “Regulation on Concealment of Criminal Proceeds”).

Nevertheless, the lower court did not additionally collect the amount equivalent to the pertinent criminal proceeds from the Defendants by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection.

(c)

Both Defendants asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In the relation of co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two relevant legal principles, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime, and there was no overall conspiracy.

Even if there are two or more persons, a public contest relationship is established if a combination of doctors is made successively or implicitly between them, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of implementation should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the acts of other public bidders (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 2004).