A. In the absence of a conspiracy with 10 nursing officers, including Co-Defendant A and C, and there is no fact that the defendant was either involved in or committed the crime, the court below held that the defendant conspired with the above Gap, etc. to commit a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), defamation, and obstruction of business. In so determining, the court below erred by mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The co-principal under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even if there was no process of conspiracy among co-offenders, if there was a combination of intent to commit a crime by co-processing in a successive or implicit manner, then the conspiracy is established if the crime was committed, and as long as such conspiracy was made, even those who did not directly participate in the act of conspiracy are held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal’s act.

(1) Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “When two or more persons jointly commit a crime listed in any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1)” means “when they jointly commit a crime” as provided in Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc., the term “when one or more persons jointly commit a crime” means the case where one or more persons jointly commit a crime at the same time and at the same place, the term “where one or more persons jointly commit a crime listed in any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (1)” requires that one or more persons jointly commit a crime by recognizing the other person’s crime at the same time and using it.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 85Do119 delivered on June 10, 1986; 95Do1642 delivered on February 23, 1996, etc.). B.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.