All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the defendant A and D and the appeal filed by the defendant A and B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) According to the statements, records of meetings, telephone conversationss, and telephone conversations of the defendant A and D, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A, B, and B (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts by the relevant legal doctrine does not need to be the only condition that the teacher commits the crime. However, the principal offender is established when another person (the principal offender) passed a resolution to commit the crime, and the principal offender is required to pass a resolution to commit the crime by the principal offender. Therefore, if the principal offender has already passed a resolution to commit the crime, there is no room for establishment of the principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do542, May 14, 191). Evidence that there is a criminal offense in criminal proceedings should be presented by the prosecutor, and the change of the principal offender is unreasonable and the principal offender is also deemed as false.

Even if so, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant, and criminal facts must be proven by a judge to have high probability beyond reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007, etc.). According to the purport of the substantial principle of direct deliberation adopted by our Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court should review the credibility of the statement of the witness of the first instance court in order to reverse the first instance judgment, in principle, the first instance judgment.