The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Seized evidence 25.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In collusion, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with the employees of Bohishing.

(2) No. 33 (I-Pone mobile phone) of the misunderstanding of the legal principles on partial confiscation is not a thing provided for the instant crime, and it is unreasonable for the court below to confiscate it.

(3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the conspiracy is not required under the law in relation to co-offenders who jointly process two or more decisions on the misunderstanding of facts, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime by committing a crime. As such, if the combination of intention is made in order or impliedly, a conspiracy is established.

(대법원 1997. 9. 12. 선고 97도1706 판결 참조). 이 사건을 보건대, 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 사정들, 즉 피고인은 A으로부터 이 사건 범행 내용을 설명 받았고, 스마트폰 어플 위챗을 통해 보이스피싱 상위 조직원과 직접 연락을 주고받았던 점, 피고인은 A으로부터 이 사건 범행을 제안받을 당시 이 사건 범행이 보이스피싱 범죄에 해당함을 인식하고 있었던 점(피고인의 경찰 진술, 수사기록 제88쪽) 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인이 이 사건의 보이스피싱 조직원들과 순차 공모하여 이 사건 범행을 저지른 사실을 넉넉히 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고인 B의 사실오인 주장은 이유 없다.

(2) Judgment of the court below on the misapprehension of legal principles.