1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even in cases where part of the co-offenders did not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime, if it is acknowledged that he/she has functional control over the crime through substantial contribution to the crime, not just the co-principal, but also the functional control over the crime through substantial contribution to the crime, the so-called crime liability as co-principal cannot be exempted.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, maintained the conclusion of the first instance court that found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds as stated in its holding, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on co-principal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant E’s grounds of appeal, “defensive means” in the crime of interference with business by deceptive means means that an actor misleads the other party as well as misleads the other party or uses the land to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if the risk of interference with business arises, it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is established even in

Furthermore, data processing devices such as computers.