The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and ten months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of the grounds of appeal 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (Defendant E), although there was no participation in the fraud against the victim J under paragraph (1) of the crime committed in the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the joint principal offender as a public offering.

2) The punishment that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (Defendant A: 3 years and 6 months of imprisonment; Defendant B; two years of imprisonment; Defendant D: one year of imprisonment; and Defendant E: one year of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant E’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the relevant legal doctrine 1) In the co-offender relationship that two or more persons of the relevant legal doctrine jointly process for a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, and there is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize such crime.

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

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons, it is established if the combination of doctors is made in order or implied manner.

As long as such solicitation has been conducted, those who did not directly participate in the conduct are held criminal liability as a joint principal offender for the conduct of others, and those who are not directly involved in the conduct may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence as to the above solicitation (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006). Meanwhile, dolusent intention is required to have the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of criminal facts and to have the intention of deliberation to allow the risk of occurrence of criminal facts.

The lower court, without depending on the statement of the actor as to whether an offender was aware of the likelihood of the occurrence of a crime, should take into account how to evaluate the possibility of the occurrence of the crime if the general public is based on the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017).