Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

A. Defendant A1) Of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts in 2012 Highest 2120 cases, the part that stolen 50,000 won in cash owned by the injured U, U credit card of U, the part that withdrawn 30,000 won on April 13, 2012 and around 00:22 on April 13, 2012 with U credit card, and the part concerning the facts charged in the case of 2012 Highest 4125, there is no possibility that the Defendant committed such a crime in collusion with B, etc., and there is no illegality of the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment).

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for 9 months, Defendant D: Imprisonment for 8 months and Defendant K: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A is not a legally required type of punishment in relation to co-offenders who jointly process two or more persons in a crime of misconception of facts. The conspiracy is not a legally required type of punishment, but only a combination of intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons. Although there was no process of conspiracy, if the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly and through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of conspiracy should be held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2144, Jun. 1, 2007). However, if one of the co-principals has left from the conspiracy relationship before the other co-principal reached the action of conspiracy, he does not bear liability for the other co-principal’s act as to the subsequent act, and if the escape from the conspiracy relationship is necessary to eliminate the functional control of the person in charge of the conspiracy, and thus, the other co-principal’s act needs to be led to the execution.