Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rendered a judgment on the following grounds that the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint processing. Even if a person who did not directly share and implement part of the constituent requirements among the competitors, if it is acknowledged that a functional control through an essential contribution to a crime exists, rather than a simple conspiracy, in full view of the status, role, control or influence over the progress of the crime, etc., the principal offender is liable for the crime committed by another conspiracy as a joint principal offender (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do235 Decided April 26, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant was conspired with his parent I and J as the discovery of graves and abandonment of remains, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise.

(1) The Defendant is named in the name of the land indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “instant land”).