Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant crime was committed by mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, which led and led Defendant A to an expectation and lead of a vague benefit arising from the election of the National Assembly candidate J, and notification to Defendant B. Defendant B did not have any knowledge in advance of the nature of the meal site that the J candidate decided to attend, and there was no intention to pay a meal stand, and there was no fact in collusion with Defendant A as to the instant crime.

Even after Defendant B committed the instant crime, the phrase “competing” was made to Defendant A.

Even if at the time of the instant crime, there was no intent to jointly process, and thus no principal offender relationship is established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of committing the instant crime in collusion with Defendant A is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B, which was unfair in sentencing (hereinafter “criminal penalty”) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3,00,000, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 5,000,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the conspiracy in which more than 2 persons of the relevant legal doctrine jointly process the crime does not require any legal penalty, and there is only a combination of intent to jointly process the crime and realize the crime in collusion with more than 2 persons.

In order or impliedly, a public contest relationship is established if a combination of doctors is made, and even those who did not directly participate in the execution even if they were committed, they are held liable as joint principal offenders for the act of other accomplices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997; 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013).