All judgment of the first instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and two months.

No. 1, 1. Certificate of Resolution of the First Instance Seized.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that each of the crimes of this case was related to the singish organization, the Defendant subsequently conspiredd to do so.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. A summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant regarding each punishment (two years of imprisonment, and six months of imprisonment) of the first instance judgment (the first instance judgment; the second instance judgment; the second instance judgment); and a summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (limited to the second instance judgment) is too unreasonable and unfair. However, the gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (limited to the second instance judgment) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the invitation of two or more persons in the relation of accomplices who jointly process a crime is not required under the law, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime, and there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner and a combination of doctors, the relationship of conspiracy is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution, even if they were to be involved in the act of execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002). The crime of fraud is established by willful negligence. It is also established by willful negligence. It is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, which allows it by expressing that the possibility of the occurrence of the crime of negligence is uncertain, and there was an willful negligence.

In order to do so, there is not only awareness of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, but also there is a internal intent to accept the risk of a crime committed by A (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9497, Jan. 14, 2016). The following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant’s instant case, acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by Domen and the first instance court, as follows: