The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Reasons for appeal (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing)

A. The Defendant is not a joint principal offender of an attempted fraud but a joint principal offender of an attempted fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to attempted fraud (1) comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, the Defendant took part in the commission of a crime, i.e., aiding and abetting the Defendant’s instructions, and she can be deemed as taking part in the instant crime and taking part in the act of committing the crime under the dolusent recognition that the victim G could be the victim of the instant crime, and determined that the Defendant could have recognized the Defendant’s intention and conspiracy on the charge of attempted fraud. (2) The lower court’s judgment did not require any legal fixed penalty in relation to the accomplice relationship that two or more persons jointly processed with the crime, but is a combination of intent to realize the crime through the joint processing of the crime. In so doing, if the two or more persons conspired to commit the crime, and such combination of intent is established, and even if the person did not directly participate in the act of conspiracy, he/she did not necessarily have any criminal liability as a co-principal with regard to the other persons’ act as a co-principal, even if he/she did not have been aware of the intention to commit the crime.