The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and four months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts did not have an intention to acquire pecuniary benefits by conspiracy with Defendant B or by deceiving a victim. Defendant A’s arbitrary use of the loan, and Defendant A’s receipt of KRW 27.6 million from Defendant B was not related to the instant case. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts is thought that Defendant B would receive KRW 150 million, which Defendant A promised to make an investment, and Defendant A would withdraw KRW 150 million out of the loans after obtaining permission from Defendant A, and there was no intention to obtain fraud. (2) The punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the relation of co-offenders who are co-processed with more than two relevant legal principles, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime by jointly processing and committing a crime. Thus, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons even though the process of the whole conspiracy does not exist, a conspiracy relationship is established.

In addition, strict proof is required to acknowledge such conspiracys. However, in a case where the defendant denies the conspiracys, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the things given the nature of the things, and what constitutes indirect facts with considerable relevance should be reasonably determined by means of determining the link of facts based on the sound observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6103 Decided January 24, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721 Decided December 22, 2011