We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of sentencing) 1) The Defendant was aware that C intended to commit a singishing crime and recruited five employees for the loan business, but did not know that C et al. had committed a crime against the victim P, and there was no conspiracy with C et al. to commit a fraud by using the computer, etc.

2) The first deliberation penalty (three years of imprisonment) for the sentencing is too unreasonable.

(b) The first deliberation sentence of the Prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment in the co-offender relationship that is jointly processed by more than two persons, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize such crime, and thus, there was no overall conspiracy process.

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). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the first instance court, namely, ① the crime of this case was committed by telecommunications fraud, by sharing the roles as the general responsibility, recruitment measures, and telephone team staff, etc. due to telecommunications fraud, and by acquiring money from victims in a systematic functional way; ② the Defendant became aware of C from the police and the prosecutor’s office of the Seoul Southern District of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of