The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B The Defendant C shall be subject to a fine of KRW 20 million.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts in collusion with Co-Defendant B and C for profit or unjust purposes, or by deceiving many and unspecified persons to sell mobile phones, and then there was no agreement to distribute the sales proceeds.

B. Each sentence against the Defendants of the lower judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A: imprisonment of August; imprisonment of June; imprisonment of two years to suspended execution of six months; and Defendant C: Imprisonment of eight months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

C. Each punishment against the Defendants in the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy in which two or more persons jointly engaged in a crime does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly, it is established if there was a combination of intent to do so between several persons, and even if there was no process of the entire conspiracy, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the conspiracy is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the person is held liable as a co-principal for the other

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do4923, Mar. 14, 2000). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts and circumstances are recognized:

① The Defendant directly made a telephone to customers before opening a mobile phone, and it seems that Co-Defendant B and C could have sufficiently known the fact that Co-Defendant B and C deceptiond customers with respect to the opening of a mobile phone.

② At the time of undergoing an investigation by the prosecutor, there is a case in which the prosecutor makes a clause that a customer renders a loan rather than opening a cell phone and provides documents to him/her.