1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, at least two persons (1) are not necessarily required to be recruited or gathered in a joint principal offender committing a crime through the joint processing of the crime, and there is no need to do so explicitly, in order, and there is a combination of intent to jointly realize the crime. However, in any case, where the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the conspiracy, the subjective element is that the facts constituting such subjective element are proved by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006). Meanwhile, the joint commission of the crime through the conspiracy does not require all accomplices to realize the requirement for the formation of the crime, but it is possible to cooperate with the accomplice to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether it constitutes the crime should be determined lawfully by taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, and the degree of control over the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1636, Feb. 26, 2006).

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine of joint principal offenders of public offering.

(2) mistake by deceiving the other party with a single criminal intent, and in the same manner.