2. In the co-offender relationship where two or more persons are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons in a crime. Even if there was no process of conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to conduct the crime in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relation is established between several persons, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the conspiracy is held liable as a co-principal for the conduct of another person. Such conspiracy may be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules, even if there was no direct evidence.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victims stated consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to the court below, ② the victims F stated that they threatened the victims as if they were to be drinking by Defendant B when the victims were committed by Defendant A at the investigative agency, ③ the Defendants found the victims’ shoulder during the process of vision and vision in the court of the court below, and the Defendants jointly and sufficiently recognized the facts of assaulting the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are made by Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.