All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The Defendant A’s sentence is too heavy.

2) Defendant BA (hereinafter “H”) was a company established independently by Defendant A, which is not related to the Defendant, and the Defendant was not involved in the acquisition of money from the victims, and was not aware of such fact.

B) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor Defendants is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but only a combination of intent to realize a crime through a joint processing with two or more co-offenders, and if the combination of intent is made in a successive or secret manner, the conspiracy relationship is established if the conspiracy is made, and even those who did not directly participate in the implementation at the same time, are liable for the other co-offenders’ act as a joint principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In such a case, the conspiracy may be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules even if there is no direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5407, Nov. 23, 2006) and the court of first instance, and the following facts acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the victims at the court below and the court of first instance.

A) A, while denying the conspiracy with the Defendant at the police station, recognized that the prosecution reversed it and committed the instant crime under the conspiracy with the Defendant.

A denies the fact of re-tender in the court of original instance.

A. A.