Of them, the part on Defendant E shall be reversed.

Defendant

The public prosecution against E is dismissed.

. Prosecutors;

A. As to the facts charged against Defendant A by mistake of facts, the lower court, which judged otherwise, did not err by misapprehending the facts, even though the Defendant was not at the present site, even though he was liable for the crime as a joint principal offender.

B. The lower court’s respective sentences against the remaining Defendants except for Defendant A who was unfair in sentencing are too uneasible and unfair.

2. According to the ex officio determination of Defendant E, the record reveals that the Defendant died on December 29, 2017, which was after the sentence of the lower judgment. As such, the part of the lower judgment on Defendant E among the lower judgment was unable to be maintained.

3. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of the facts against Defendant A is established by meeting the subjective objective requirement that the crime is committed through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the intent of joint processing. A part of the conspiracys did not directly share and implement part of the constituent elements.

Even if it is recognized that the functional control over the crime exists through essential contribution to the crime rather than just a person who has conspired, the crime liability as a so-called co-principal cannot be exempted.

However, in light of the following circumstances admitted by evidence, it is difficult to view that the defendant should bear the responsibility as a so-called joint principal offender for the crime of interference with the business of this case in accordance with the above legal principles, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion of

① According to the statements of victims and majority witnesses, the Defendant did not interfere with duties at the time of committing the instant crime of interference with duties.

② In addition, the defendant led the crime of interference with the business of this case in advance.