All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with the employees of Bohishing Mediation.

B. The Defendants asserts that the respective sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year, short of ten months, confiscation, confiscation, one year of imprisonment with prison labor, confiscation) of the lower court is too unlimited, and the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts are co-offenders who jointly process a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is only a combination of intent to realize a crime through the joint processing of a crime by two or more persons, and the conspiracy of intent is established in order or impliedly, if the combination of intent is achieved, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, those who did not directly participate in the act of execution shall be held criminal liability as co-principal against the other co-offenders

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 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, Defendant A, prior to the instant crime, took place once at the bank in order to find the amount of singingingishing, around March 2015. Around May 21, 2015, the instant crime was committed by the person of singishing L, who responded to the purport that the Defendant would come into contact with wa, and the Defendant would come into contact with wa, and the Defendant was asked. However, the investigation agency stated that Defendant A was to hear Ga’s horse and made a statement to the effect that Defendant B had no danger. In addition, the investigation agency stated that Defendant A received contact separately from the said L, and only the relationship between Defendant A and the Defendant was taken into account.