The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy is not legally required, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize the crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, a conspiracy is established if the combination of intentions is made in order or impliedly, among several persons, even though there is no process of the whole conspiracy.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such conspiracys, but where the defendant denies the conspiracys, which are the subjective elements of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts which are relevant to the nature of the things in light of the nature of the things, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts with considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the facts by using close observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

(2) On December 22, 2011, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the relevant employment evidence, and determined that the Defendant was fully aware of the fact that the instant transfer contract was concluded without securing the acquisition price, and that the Defendant would have been sufficiently aware of the fact that the instant transfer contract was concluded on the premise of the instant transfer contract, thereby making it possible to secure the acquisition price by allowing L to implement capital increase with the lead of L, while allowing L to procure 12.5 billion won from the bond company.