All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B did not have conspired with Defendant C to commit a crime of transport of stolen goods.

Defendant

C was at the scene of crime and did not have awareness that it was stolen, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant B and stolen transport crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (Defendant B: imprisonment for 8 months, and fine for 3 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (as to Defendant B and C) by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (defendant B and C 1) is not required under the law as to the conspiracy of co-offenders who are engaged in a crime in collusion with more than two persons (defendant B and C 1) but have an implied communication with the accomplices who intend to commit the crime in direct or indirect manner. It is sufficient to conclude that there is no direct evidence thereof, and that there is no direct evidence thereof, by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules.

In addition, the joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices realize the requirement for the formation of the crime by themselves, and it is possible to cooperate with the accomplices who implement the act in question to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether it is applicable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2905, Apr. 26, 2012, etc.). Meanwhile, the recognition of stolen goods in the crime of transport of stolen goods is not required to be a conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient as a dolusent perception to the degree of doubt that the stolen goods might be stolen, and whether it is known that it is a stolen goods, the status of the owner of stolen goods, the nature of the property, and the intention to control the crime.