All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) merely informed Co-Defendant B and F of the contact details with each other, and there was no fact that he participated in the instant crime by soliciting the instant fraud, etc. Even if the facts charged against the Defendant is found guilty of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. If the combination of the intent is made by either consecutive or impliedly and through the process of the crime, the conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, a person who does not directly participate in the act of execution is held liable as a co-principal for the other co-offender’s act.

Therefore, it cannot be denied the public-private partnership relationship even though the public-private partnership's method of deception was different in detail from that of deception.

(2) In light of the following facts established by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, and the circumstances that can reasonably be inferred therefrom, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant A committed a crime through functional control with the intent of co-processing with respect to the entire crime of this case. Defendant A did not participate in the direct action against the victim and did not know of the specific method of crime, etc., on the ground that Defendant A did not participate in such direct action against the victim.