Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the part of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below) and Defendant A’s statement of reasons for appeal in the annexed Form No. 4, 7 and attached Form No. 2 (2) of the List of Offenses (1) per annum in the judgment of the court of original instance, are indicated as “, but the sending phone is indicated as “AF,” and this is clearly written as “the sending phone is indicated as “the sending phone” No. 2 of the annexed Form No. 2 of the judgment of the court of original instance, and the Defendant did not take part in the Defendant. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (the judgment of the court of first instance: 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor) of the court of original judgment is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the Defendant A were rendered, and the Defendant A filed an appeal against them, respectively. This court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Since each of the crimes against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant A's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

B. A joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act of the relevant legal doctrine regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is jointly committed by two or more persons. In order to constitute joint principal offenders, it is necessary to have committed a crime through the functional control by the joint doctor, which is a subjective element, and the intention of joint process is to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of joint intent.