The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, as to Defendant A, this shall not apply.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by Defendant B, around June 24, 201 and around June 24, 2011, there is no fact that Defendant B conspired to commit the crime of fraud, and did not participate in

Defendant

B by deceiving I, it was believed that I had the intent or ability to rescue the cover notes or capital notes that I wants by the victim, and only delivered the details explained by I to the victim. The defendant B did not have the intention of defraudation or the intention of illegal acquisition.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

On June 24, 2011, Article 30 of the Criminal Code provides that there is no conspiracy relationship for the crime of fraud, and Article 30 of the Criminal Code provides that two or more co-principals jointly commit the crime. In order to establish the co-principal, the subjective requirement is the intention of co-processing and the objective requirement, and the fact of execution of the crime through functional control based on the co-principal's intention is required.

Joint processing intention is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime but to accept it without preventing it. It is not sufficient that the intention of joint processing is to shift one's own intention by using another person's act as a whole to conduct a specific criminal act with a common intention.

Therefore, in order to determine the establishment of joint principal offender, the relationship of mutual use based on joint processing should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by examining the status and role of each actor through the whole process of the realization of the crime, and the contents of solicitation of other actors.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5355, Oct. 29, 2015). Defendant B is as indicated in the facts charged.