All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of mistake of facts in collusion with V on the fact that the defendant acquired the sales proceeds of fishery products of "I" and "Feart" from "I" and the victim'sO, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below on the unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On June 8, 2017, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant conspired with V to make a false statement that “a person leases facilities and business rights to fishery farmers in I and would pay the remainder of sales proceeds except for fees if fishery products are sold.” On September 2017, 201, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits from the victim by falsely stating that “a person leases facilities and business rights to fishery farmers in Fmarate and would lease sales rights to the same victim, and would pay the remainder of sales proceeds excluding fees if fishery products are sold.” (b) In order to establish a joint principal offender of this part of the facts charged, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits from the victim. As a subjective element, the intention of joint processing is required as an objective requirement, and the intention of joint processing is not sufficient to recognize the other person’s crime but to accept it with the awareness of the other person’s criminal act, and the intention of joint processing is insufficient to fully implement the act with another person’s intent to commit a specific criminal act.”

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the specific legal doctrine as to March 28, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003).