All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) was aware of the instant Bosing crime from the beginning and there was no conspiracy for Defendant B to commit the instant Bosing crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, if the combination of the intent is made by either consecutive or impliedly going through the process of the crime, the conspiracy relationship is established if the two or more persons intend to commit the crime. As long as such conspiracy was made, even those who did not directly participate in the act of the crime, are held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of the other accomplices. Therefore, the principal offender of the conspiracy of fraud did not specifically know the method of deception.

Even if a public offering cannot be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do50, Aug. 23, 2013). Although there is no direct evidence as to the above public offering, it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4320, May 11, 2006). In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the fact of the public offering, the facts constituting such subjective elements have to be proved by the method of proving the indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006).