All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant merely introduced D to the victim on February 14, 2012, and received KRW 11 million from D on the same day is personal borrowing.

The Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the victim on February 24, 2012, in personal loans, and remitted KRW 10 million out of KRW 30 million to D is the repayment of the money borrowed to D above.

D The conspiracy relation with the D or functional control over the crime can not be recognized.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant argued to the same effect in the lower court.

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the basis of the legal statement and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, examining the victim as a witness and other persons related to the instant case.

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable in its determination based on the evidence, in addition to the circumstances presented by the lower court.

B. The solicitation of two or more accomplices in conspiracy to commit a crime does not require any legal penalty, but there is an implicit communication with one another in direct or indirect respect to joint action between the accomplices who intend to commit a crime.

Joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is possible without the premise that all accomplices realize the requirement for the formation of a crime by themselves, and it is also possible to cooperate with accomplices who implement a real act to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether it falls under it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation, the intent to control the crime, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 206Do278, Dec. 22, 2006).