The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. At least two co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime do not legally require a certain type of punishment, but only two or more persons commit a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of conspiracy, if a combination of intent is formed by mutual agreement either successively or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even if they did not directly participate in the act of conspiracy, they are held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal.

(2) On February 23, 2006, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the first instance court. (1) concluded an online shopping mall agreement with Company I (hereinafter “I”) and Australia (hereinafter “K”), which is a multilevel marketing management program, with H’s exclusive sales franchise agreement with H, and received approximately 24% of H sales revenue in return. However, unlike F’s publicity, the lower court did not function as a multilevel marketing management program. (2) The Defendant, as the head office of the FF, participated in the online presentation program, including I, and recommended investment in the web project, etc.; (3) the possibility of listing stocks and the possibility of listing stocks of the Defendant to the Plaintiff or the KOSDAQ-listed private investors; and (4) the possibility of listing stocks and the possibility of listing the stocks of the Plaintiff-listed private investors; and (4) the possibility of listing the stocks of the Plaintiff-listed private investors.