The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant was only involved only in cash withdrawal with the knowledge of the fact that he had been involved in the crime of this case, and did not have conspired with the person who has not been killed in name. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where two or more legal principles related to the 1-related argument for a mistake of fact do not require a legally fixed sentence in relation to co-offenders who process a crime, but only combines the intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if a combination of doctors is formed by either successively or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was a person involved in the conduct of the conspiracy, he/she is held criminal liability as a co-principal for the conduct of another conspiracy. In this case, it is sufficient that there is no need for prior conspiracy of the crime plan, and there is a mutual agreement between the accomplices that each of the accomplices satisfies the elements of a crime or shares the act in essence related to the elements

In addition, there is a strict proof for recognizing the criminal facts that constitute a conspiracy or conspiracy in a public-private partnership. However, in a case where the defendant recognizes facts directly involved in the act of the execution and denies the criminal intent along with the fact of the public-private partnership, the facts constituting such subjective elements are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation is normal empirical rule.