1. Examining the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court was justifiable in maintaining the first instance judgment which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapons, etc. causing damage, etc. to property) on October 24, 2010 among the facts charged in the instant case, and contrary to the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the joint principal offender, or by exceeding the bounds

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. Examining the legal principles related to No. 1 and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding the Defendants guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal principles or by exceeding the bounds of the principle

B. The grounds of appeal No. 2, Article 30 of the Criminal Code is established by satisfying the subjective and 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 if a person who did not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime among the competitors, if it is acknowledged that a functional control through the intrinsic contribution to the crime exists not only by a simple conspiracy but also by a functional control through the intrinsic contribution to the crime, in view of the status, role, control, and power over the criminal process in whole, etc., the crime committed by another conspiracy shall be held as a co-principal for the crime committed by another conspiracy.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do235 Decided April 26, 2007, etc.).