A. The Defendants did not conspired with C, D, E as indicated in the judgment.

B. Legal principles 1) As to the infringement of a room room, the Defendants entered the office under the C’s understanding as the manager of the office of the committee on election management (hereinafter “office”), the Defendants did not infringe, but did not have any intention of intrusion against the Defendants.

2) The Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate act, since the Defendants destroyed and damaged office locks by the lawful ballot counting authority of C, the chairman of the election management commission, who is the chairman of the political party’s assertion of the act.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (each of the Defendants 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of co-offenders who jointly process two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of fact, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons' intent to jointly process a certain crime and realize such crime, and thus, there was no overall conspiracy process.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner and a combination of doctors, a conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of execution should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another person (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Do4923, Mar. 14, 2000; 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002; 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002). In such a case, it is necessary to establish a crime of conspiracy or conspiracy in a joint principal offender, and it is not required to establish it. However, if the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the fact that he directly participated in the act of execution, the facts constituting such subjective element are proved by a method that proves indirect facts having considerable relation to the criminal intent by the nature of the object.