The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant C is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against Defendant A, the lower court is justifiable to have rendered a not-guilty verdict on the ground that there was no evidence of the crime regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant A among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on Defendant C

A. In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more crimes, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to commit a crime by co-processing and realizing a crime. If the combination of the intent is carried out in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not participate directly in the act of execution should be held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

Therefore, it cannot be denied the public-private partnership relationship even though the public-private partnership's method of deception was different in detail from that of deception.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706 delivered on September 12, 1997). B.

(1) Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, determined that it is not adequate to recognize that the Defendant C, who is a public official of the Defendant C, conspireds with the Defendant A to commit fraud in this part, by deceiving the SH construction by means of preparing and exercising a false official document, and allowing K, who is not entitled to apply for parcelling-out, to acquire an apartment.