A joint principal offender who commits a crime through the joint processing of two or more persons does not necessarily need to be recruited explicitly and the mother or the mother may not be made explicitly, and in any case, there is a combination of intent to jointly process a crime and realize it jointly.

If the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements are to be proved by the method of proving the indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object.

In addition, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Code is established by meeting the subjective objective requirements of criminal administration through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint processing, and some of the persons who have conspired have not been carried out by directly sharing part of the constituent acts.

Even in cases where it is recognized that functional control exists through essential contribution to a crime rather than merely a person who has conspired, the so-called "joint principal offender" cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do6551, Feb. 12, 2009; 2009Do1235, Oct. 29, 2009). Meanwhile, the argument that is the basis for the judgment of the court below or that is the basis for the judgment of the court of fact among the grounds for appeal is nothing more than dispute over the determination of the evidence and probative value of the court of fact-finding, which actually belongs to the judgment of the court of fact-finding.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, conspiredd the Defendants to commit the instant market price manipulation.

set forth above is justified.

There is an error.