The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are merely dealt with the miscellaneous affairs in accordance with B’s direction, and there is no fact that B, in collusion with B, deceiving the victim and deceiving the customer subsidy.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, a public offering in a joint co-offender relationship that two or more persons conspired to commit a crime is not required under the law, but is sufficient to have an implied communication on the joint enforcement, directly or indirectly, between the accomplices who intend to commit a crime, and can be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence.

In addition, joint execution of a crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices realize the elements of a crime by themselves, and it is possible to cooperate with accomplices who conduct the realization act to strengthen their decision on the act. Whether it falls under it should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation, intent to control the act, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623 Decided December 22, 2006, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the facts of conspiracy to commit the crime of fraud as stated in the facts constituting the crime in B and the court below’s judgment, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

㈎ 피고인은 2012. 6. 초순경 B로부터 '핸드폰을 개통하면 통신사에서...