The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, misunderstanding of facts, was recruited by people who reported and contacted sports Saturdays in the Philippines, and did not misrepresent themselves, nor did he participated in the recruitment of domestic lighting staff, and did not know about each of the crimes of this case.

Nevertheless, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case in collusion with his assistant employees.

In light of the above, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of conviction and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of fact-finding is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more co-offenders who intend to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, if a conspiracy is established by either consecutive or impliedly or through the combination of intent to do so, the conspiracy is established if the two or more co-offenders are involved in the conduct. As long as such conspiracy was conducted, a person who does not directly participate in the conduct is held liable for the other co-offenders’ act as a joint principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In this context, in light of all the circumstances such as the means and form of the crime, the number and degree of the participants, time and character of the place of the crime, possibility of contact with others during the course of the crime, and anticipated reaction, etc., the conspiracy is likely to result in another incidental crime during the process of the crime or achieve the purpose, and if such possibility is sufficiently foreseeable, it does not take any reasonable measure as to the individual crime.