The appeal is dismissed.

1. At least two co-offenders who are co-processed with crimes do not legally require a certain punishment, but only two or more persons conspired to commit a crime and make a combination of intent to realize a crime through joint processing;

Although there is no master process of the whole, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly between several persons, a competitive relationship is established.

In order to recognize such a conspiracy, strict proof is required, but if the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that are relevant to the nature of the crime.

In this case, what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance should be reasonably determined by the detailed observation or analysis history based on normal empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do2654 delivered on Nov. 24, 1998, etc.). Meanwhile, a co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. As such, a person who did not directly share the elements of a crime among the competitors and did not implement it may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether the above requirements are met.

In order to be recognized as a co-principal by a conspiracy who has not performed by directly sharing the act of constituent elements, the functional control through essential contribution to the crime should be recognized not only as a mere conspiracy but also as a functional control through the inherent contribution to the crime by comprehensively taking into account the position he/she serves in the entire crime, control over the crime progress, and the influence of the crime

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do321 Decided May 21, 1998, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.).