The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to interference with the F’s relevant business at the time of entry

A. Joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not based on the premise that all accomplices fulfill the requirements for the formation of a crime by themselves, but can also be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). In addition, in a joint conspiracy relation between two or more accomplices who jointly process a crime, there is a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons, not by law, but by combining two or more persons to jointly realize a crime. Thus, if a combination of doctors is made either in order or implicitly through several persons, even if the whole conspiracy process was not completed, the public conspiracy relation is established (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011).

The court judged the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

(c)

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

2.F school affairs;