All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant - misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing 1) Fact-finding, although it is recognized that Defendant - misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of facts as stated in the facts charged, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant - misunderstanding of name and “public offering” was conducted with assistants, and the Defendant is merely a paper offender. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders of public offering.

2) Even if all the charges of sentencing are found guilty, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor - In light of the degree of harm or the seriousness of damage to the so-called “scaming,” which is unfair for sentencing, the lower court’s sentence is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment in the co-offender relationship that two or more persons jointly process for a crime, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. As such, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there are two or more persons, if the combination of doctors is carried out in a successive or secret manner, a public contest relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the contest shall be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another contest.

On the other hand, there is a strict proof for recognizing the criminal facts that constitute the conspiracy or conspiracy in the joint principal offender. However, if the defendant recognizes the facts directly involved in the act of the conduct and denies the criminal intent along with the fact of the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements are reasonable from the nature of the object.