All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

The defendant shall obtain money from the applicant for compensation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of a mistake of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles that his act was used for licensing.

Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have conspiredd to commit the instant fraud.

Even if the defendant is held liable for the crime of fraud following the instant Bophishing crime, since the defendant is not recognized to have functional control over the crime, only the aiding and abetting offender, who is not the joint principal offender of the crime of fraud, is established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the first instance court’s sentence: imprisonment of two years and six months, and imprisonment of six months) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles jointly process a criminal offense, 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 agreement is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution should be held liable as a co-principal with regard to the other co-offenders' acts.

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 aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a crime, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a crime, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a crime, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). The aforementioned legal doctrine and the foregoing.