The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and Defendant C.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by each of the Defendants and the prosecutor below the gist of the grounds for appeal and the judgment on the grounds therefor are specified as “Defendant” without separately stating the names of the Defendants and only as “Defendant”.

A. Defendant A (Defendant A1) did not take part in the crime committed on March 24, 2017 [the crime list (1) of the crime in the judgment, 8, 9, 15, 16, hereinafter referred to as “part of the crime in this case”)].

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C’s sentence (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months) imposed on the above Defendants is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of two years and six months, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment of two years, confiscation, Defendant C: imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, Defendant D: imprisonment of one year and one year and one year, two years of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, community service, confiscation) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not require any legal penalty, but only if two or more persons conspired to commit a crime and thereby intend to realize the crime, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner and a combination of doctors, a conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of implementation should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002). (b) In light of such legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, are, namely, ① the Defendant’s name in secret, such as H, as the facts charged in the judgment.