The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not play a role as the “book” of the instant telephone financial fraud organization with respect to the money acquired by the victims by remitting the money by means of the account in the name of CT on May 31, 2014 and June 1, 2014. As such, Defendant A did not play a role as a joint principal offender with respect to the crime of fraud using computers, etc. on May 31, 2014 and June 1, 2014. However, Defendant A was not liable for the crime of fraud using computers, etc. on June 1, 2014. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (two years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

C. The prosecutor’s defendant B was involved in the instant telephone financial fraud organization even during the period from August 1, 2014 to August 14, 2014, and could not be viewed as departing from the public offering. However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant B of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the public offering does not require any legal punishment in relation to the co-offender relationship in which two or more persons jointly process the crime, but only constitutes a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons jointly process the crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intent is made in order or implicitly through several persons, the public offering relationship is established, and even if the co-principal of fraud knew of the method of deception in detail, the public offering relationship cannot be denied (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). Moreover, the public offering intent of co-processing is perceived as another person’s crime, but it is not prohibited.