The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B did not have conspired to commit the instant crime or actively participated in the instant crime with Defendant C, D, and Defendant A, and is merely a part of the participation to the extent that he was in charge of driving or processing miscellaneous affairs, such as a diameter.

In addition, Defendant B did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation against the victim, and there is no real benefit of property from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized Defendant B as joint principal offender in relation to the crime of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year; imprisonment for eight months and suspended execution for two years; and the community service order 120 hours) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the public offering does not require any legal punishment in relation to the relation of accomplices who jointly process two or more persons in a crime, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons with intent to jointly process a crime. If the public offering is made in a successive or implicit manner, the public offering relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the crime are held liable for criminal liability as a joint principal offender against the other accomplices even if they did not participate in the public offering. As such, even if the public offering of fraud did not have specifically known the method of deception, the public offering cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). Moreover, the public offering intention of joint processing is insufficient without any awareness of another person’s crime, but it is not sufficient for each accomplice to accept it in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 2000).