All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A alone committed a crime that was destroyed by misunderstanding the facts (Defendant B) by removing the office number of the association in this case, and Defendant B met the Defendant A that the door should be opened through legitimate procedures at the time of the case.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby finding Defendant B guilty of the charges on the joint property damage.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize the crime. Thus, although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, there was no process of the conspiracy of two or more persons.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons either successively or implicitly and a combination of doctors, a conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of implementation should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another competitor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10318, Feb. 26, 2009). The evidence duly adopted and duly completed the examination of evidence and completed the examination of evidence, and according to the contents of screen pictures taken on the site at the time of the instant case, Defendant B was located in the office before the office of the partnership office of Defendant A.

B B B had been prior to disclosing his intention to open a door to E, and the door is opened, and at the time Defendant A opened an office number, Defendant B entered the farm site and entered the office with a document envelope attached thereto. Defendant A immediately adjacent to the document bag, and the documents to be presented to E were handed down from the document bag to the Defendant A, and the Defendants thereafter turned down the documents to E.