All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (1) misunderstanding of facts merely introduces Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) to Defendant C merely upon A’s request, and there is an error of misconception of facts that the lower court recognized Defendant C as a co-principal even though it constitutes a co-principal. (2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts, the essence of the relevant legal doctrine’s co-principal is deemed to be functional control by division of roles. As such, the co-principal has functional control over a functional act by a co-principal, while the co-principal is distinct from each other in that he/she has no control over that act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1247, Apr. 11, 1989; 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013; 2015Do3852, May 28, 2015). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the instant case and the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, Defendant C may be recognized that the co-principal has functional control over the instant facts. Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant C is without merit.

① Defendant C consistently made a statement from the police to the court of first instance that it is necessary to operate the company, and Defendant C planned to commit the instant crime.

(2) On March 2015, Defendant C also her friencedly friened with the following: (a) Defendant C’s friencing with the purchase of machinery from Defendant B: “A is difficult to finance the political party, and I will only make documents as if I sold the machinery.”