The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have conspired to commit the instant Bosing fraud, and did not have any intention to commit the fraud.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court of original judgment (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy in which two or more persons of the relevant legal principles jointly process a crime does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process a crime.

Although there was no process of the whole mother;

Even if there are two or more persons, a public contest relationship is established if a combination of doctors is made successively or implicitly, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of implementation is held liable for criminal liability as a principal offender for the act of another person, and such public contest may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there is no direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do16249, May 29, 2014). In addition, a public contest of fraud had different detailed methods of deceiving the principal offender.

Even if a public-private partnership relationship cannot be denied (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013). A public-private partnership relationship is also established by dolusent intentional negligence. As such, a subjective element of the constituent elements of a crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain and the case where the crime is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime, and where there was willful negligence.

In order to do so, there is not only awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is a internal intent to allow the risk of the crime to occur, and whether the offender allowed the possibility of the crime to occur or not is dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the form of the act and the situation of the act that was disclosed outside.