All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant received money with the knowledge of whether fraud is established or not and the misapprehension of the legal principle as to whether fraud is committed or not, and the Defendant did not conspired to commit fraud against the weak and the victim as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on co-principals, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the examination of evidence, which did not use the suspect interrogation protocol which the defendant denied the admissibility of evidence as impeachment evidence, as a summary of the evidence, but did not use the suspect's statement as impeachment evidence. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the examination of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service, confiscation) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the establishment of a defendant's crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but only a combination of the intent of two or more persons to jointly process and realize the crime by committing a crime. Thus, if the combination of the intent is made in order or impliedly, a conspiracy relation is established. A person who does not directly participate in the act of execution is held liable as a co-principal even if he/she does not participate in the act of execution.

Therefore, it cannot be denied the public-private partnership relationship even though the public-private partnership's method of deception was different in detail from that of deception.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 23. 8.