All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B (1) In the event that there was no functional control over A’s robbery by deeming that he participated in A’s robbery, such as intending to commit robbery or neglecting to take part in an act of forcibly taking advantage of his awareness or anti-influor, etc., the lower court’s judgment that recognized the crime of special robbery by deeming that the Defendant participated in A’s robbery was erroneous or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant alleged mental and physical disability was in the state of having the ability to discern things or make a decision by taking advantage of the influence

3) In light of the fact that the lower court’s sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment, a suspended sentence of four years, community service 80 hours) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) In light of the fact that the victim alleged misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the police investigation, and the victim stated that he was unable to receive medical treatment because of the fact that the victim was injured due to robbery by robbery of the Defendants, the lower court did not recognize the crime of injury by robbery, even though it is obvious that the victim was injured due to robbery by robbery of the Defendants, there was an error of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, suspended execution for five years, and community service for 160 hours) are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B’s grounds for appeal, the lower court does not require only a prior conspiracy or conspiracy in a joint crime as provided by Article 334(2) of the Criminal Act, but also includes an idea through an implied deliberation at the scene of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4013, Dec. 11, 2001). A joint crime requires the sharing of the act of execution on the spot as an objective requirement, in addition to the conspiracy, as a subjective requirement.