2. In order to establish a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the intent and objective requirements of joint processing, which are subjective requirements, should have been committed through functional control based on the joint doctor. Here, the intent of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and to allow it without restraint. The purport of joint processing should be one of the two to commit a specific criminal act as a joint doctor, and to shift one’s own intention to practice by using another person’s criminal act.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7124, Jan. 30, 2009). Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant is denied in this court. As such, since the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant was rejected in this court, the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant B is not admissible as evidence to the effect that it denies its contents

Next, in the police statement of D, the statement that "the employee's price was 5.60,00 won without paying the drinking value, and the customer's disturbance was caused by this, and the customer's disturbance was avoided. At the time, the defendant and B, who are the case party, will speak the entrance and desire of the customer, and will interfere with the entry of the customer due to this act.