The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against D along with D, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint crimes, the judgment below which convicted the defendant of special larceny, although there was no fact that he conspireded to commit the larceny with D or participated in the larceny crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a so-called joint crime as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the conspiracy as a subjective element and the objective element should be shared by the act of implementation as an objective element. Since such conspiracy does not require any legal qualification, it does not necessarily lead directly or indirectly to an implied intent between accomplices, and thus, it does not necessarily require the process of conspiracy in advance. The act of implementation is deemed to be in a cooperative relationship between time and place (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1757, Feb. 27, 1998; 2002Do3791, Sept. 27, 2002). A joint criminal needs to share the act of implementation on the spot as an objective requirement other than a public contest, but it is sufficient to view that the act of implementation is in a temporary or cooperative relationship not only the act of implementation by specifying it at the same time but also the act of cooperation at the same place.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Do917 delivered on July 28, 1992). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) as the defendant had stolen a mobile phone at the time of the prosecutor's investigation before the prosecutor's investigation, and (ii) as the defendant had stolen a mobile phone at the time of the aforementioned investigation, the defendant also made soup (hereinafter "the soup bank of this case").