The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (in fact-finding, and unfair sentencing) committed the instant crime by mistake of facts. Defendant A, who is a de facto operator of D, committed the instant crime by mistake of facts, and Defendant A, who is only a nominal representative director, did not conspired with Defendant B. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is not required under the law in relation to the conspiracys that two or more persons jointly process for a crime, but is a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons jointly processing a certain crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracys, if the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly and through several persons, the conspiracys shall be established and criminal liability as a co-principal. In addition, it is necessary to establish such conspiracys or conspiracys of criminal facts, and there is no strict proof in order to establish it. However, if the Defendant denies the conspiracys of criminal facts, which are subjective elements of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent, and what constitutes indirect facts should be based on normal empirical rule, it is necessary to reasonably determine the connection status by taking into account the situation of the Defendant Company’s collective housing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do497, Jul. 26, 2002).